BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION METHODS (chp1-5) PDF

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University
BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION METHODS & TOOLS FOR SIMPLIFIED PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
By Carlos Marcelo Ramirez and Eduardo Miranda
Report No. 171 May 2009
The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center was established to promote research and education in earthquake engineering. Through its activities our understanding of earthquakes and their effects on mankinds facilities and structures is improving. The Center conducts research, provides instruction, publishes reports and articles, conducts seminar and conferences, and provides financial support for students. The Center is named for Dr. John A. Blume, a well-known consulting engineer and Stanford alumnus. Address: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University Stanford CA 94305-4020 (650) 723-4150 (650) 725-9755 (fax) racquelh@stanford.edu http://blume.stanford.edu
200 The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Copyright by Carlos M. Ramirez 2009 All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
The goal of current building codes is to protect life-safety and do not contain provisions that aim to mitigate the amount of damage and economic loss suffered during an earthquake. However, recent earthquakes in California and elsewhere have shown that seismic events may incur large economic losses due to damage in buildings and other structures, which in many cases were unexpected to owners and other stakeholders. Performance-based earthquake engineering is aimed at designing structures that achieve a performance that is acceptable to stakeholders. The approach developed the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center has showed promise by providing a fully probabilistic framework that accounts for uncertainty from the ground motion hazard, the structural response, and the damage and economic loss sustained. This framework uses building-specific loss estimation methodologies to evaluate structural systems and help stakeholders make better design decisions. The objectives of this dissertation are to improve and simplify the current PEER building-specific loss estimation methodology. A simplified version of PEERs framework, termed story-based loss estimation, was developed. The approach pre-computes damage to generate functions (EDP-DV functions) that relate structural response directly to loss for each story. As part of the development of these functions the effect of conditional losses of spatially dependent components was investigated to see if it had a large influence on losses. The EDP-DV functions were also developed using generic fragility functions generated using empirical data to compute damage of components that do not currently have component-specific fragilities. To improve the computation of the aleatoric variability of economic loss, approximate analytical and simulation methods of incorporating buildinglevel construction cost dispersion and correlations, which are better suited to use construction cost data appropriately, were developed. The overall loss methodology was modified to incorporate the losses due to demolishing a building that has not collapsed but cannot be repaired due to excessive residual drift. Most of these modifications to PEERs
ii
methodology were implemented into computer tool that facilities the computation of seismic-induced economic loss. This tool was then used to compute and benchmark the economic losses of a set of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame office buildings available in literature that were representative of both modern, ductile structures and older, non-ductile structures. The average normalized economic loss of the ductile frames was determined to be 25% of the building replacement value at the design basis earthquake (DBE) for this set of structures. The non-ductile frames exhibited much larger normalized losses that averaged 61%. Of the structural and architectural design parameters examined in this study, the height of the building demonstrated the largest influence on the normalized economic loss. One of the 4story ductile structures was analyzed as a case-study to determine the variability of its economic loss. Its mean loss at the DBE was estimated to be 31% of its replacement value with a coefficient of variation of 0.67. To examine the effect of losses due to building demolition, four example buildings (two ductile and two non-ductile frames) were analyzed. It was found that this type of loss had the largest effect on the ductile structures, increasing economic loss estimates by as much as 45%. The economic losses computed in this investigation are large even for the code-conforming buildings. The aleatoric variability of these losses is also large and heavily influenced by construction cost uncertainty and correlations. The story-based loss estimation method provides an alternative way of assessing structural performance that is efficient and less computationally expensive than previous approaches. This allows engineers and analysts to focus on the input the seismic hazard analysis and the structural analysis and the output the design decisions of loss estimation rather than on the loss estimation procedure itself. Limiting the amount of time and resources spent on the loss estimation process will hopefully facilitate the acceptance of performance-based seismic design methods into the practicing engineering community.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was primarily funded by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center with support from the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation. Additional financial assistance provided by the John A. Blume Fellowship and the by the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. This report was initially published as the Ph.D. dissertation of the first author. The authors would like to thank Professors Gregory Deierlein, Helmut Krawinkler and Jack Baker for their valuable and insightful comments on this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge Professors Abbie Liel and Curt Haselton for the use of their structural simulation results and Professor Judith Mitrani-Reiser for the use of her MDLA toolbox. This research was not possible without their collaboration and their contributions to this work.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. IX LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... XI 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 MOTIVATION & BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 3 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION ........................................................................... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................... 8 REGIONAL LOSS ESTIMATION .................................................................................. 8 BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION .................................................................. 10 LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ...................................................................... 14
PREVIOUS WORK ON LOSS ESTIMATION ........................................................ 8
STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION .......................... 17 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 17 3.2 STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFC LOSS ESTIMATION ............................................ 20 3.2.1 Previous loss estimation methodology (component-based) ............................. 20 3.2.2 EDP-DV function formulation ......................................................................... 22 3.3 DATA FOR EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 24 3.3.1 Building Components & Cost Distributions .................................................... 24 3.3.2 Fragility Functions Used .................................................................................. 28 3.4 EXAMPLE STORY EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ................................................................. 33 3.5 CONDITIONAL LOSS OF SPATIALLY INTERDEPENDENT COMPONENTS..................... 40 3.6 DISCUSSION OF LIMITATIONS OF STORY-BASED APPROACH & EDP-DV FUNCTIONS 50 3.7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 51
4 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPONENT FRAGILTIY FUNCTIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA.................................................................................................. 53 4.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER ..................................................................................... 53
4.2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 53 4.3 DAMAGE STATE DEFINITIONS ................................................................................ 56 4.4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS USED IN THIS STUDY ..................................................... 58 4.5 FRAGILITY FUNCTION FORMULATION .................................................................... 61 4.5.1 Fragility Functions for Yielding....................................................................... 64 4.5.2 Fragility Functions for Fracture ....................................................................... 74 4.6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 77 5 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPONENT FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FROM EMPIRICAL DATA ........................................................................................................... 79 5.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER ..................................................................................... 79 5.2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 79 5.3 SOURCES OF EMPIRICAL DATA .............................................................................. 82 5.3.1 Instrumented Buildings (CSMIP) .................................................................... 82 5.3.2 Buildings surveyed in the ATC-38 Report....................................................... 84 5.4 DATA FROM INSTRUMENTED BUILDINGS ............................................................... 86 5.4.1 Structural response simulation ......................................................................... 86 5.4.2 Motion-damage pairs for each building ........................................................... 92 5.5 DATA FROM ATC-38 ............................................................................................. 95 5.5.1 Structural response simulation ......................................................................... 95 5.5.2 Motion-damage pairs for each building ........................................................... 98 5.6 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FORMULATION ................................................................ 102 5.6.1 Procedures to compute fragility functions ..................................................... 102 5.6.2 Limitations of fragility function procedures .................................................. 107 5.6.3 Adjustments to fragility function parameters ................................................. 109 5.7 FRAGILITY FUNCTION RESULTS ........................................................................... 112 5.7.1 Comparison with generic functions from HAZUS ........................................ 118 5.8 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 119 6 DEVELOPMENT OF A STORY-BASED LOSS ESTIMATION TOOLBOX .. 121 6.1 PROGRAM STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 121 6.2 GRAPHICAL USER INTER FACE ............................................................................. 124 6.2.1 Building Information & Characterization ...................................................... 124 6.2.2 EDP-DV Function Editor ............................................................................... 125 6.2.3 Main Window................................................................................................. 129 6.2.4 Hazard Module ............................................................................................... 130 6.2.5 Response simulation module.......................................................................... 132 6.2.6 EDP-DV Module............................................................................................ 137 6.2.7 Loss Estimation Module ................................................................................ 139 6.2.8 Loss Disaggregation and Visualization Module ............................................ 140 7 BENCHMARKING SEISMIC-INDUCED ECONOMIC LOSSES USING STORY-BASED LOSS ESTIMATION .......................................................................... 143 7.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER ................................................................................... 143 7.2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 144 7.3 LOSS ESTIMATION PROCEDURE ........................................................................... 146 7.4 DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS ................................................................................ 147 7.4.1 Architectural Layouts and Cost Estimates (developed by Spear and Steiner) 149
vi
7.4.2 Nonlinear Simulation Models and Structural Analysis (computed by Liel and Haselton) ..................................................................................................................... 152 7.5 ECONOMIC LOSSES .............................................................................................. 156 7.5.1 Expected losses conditioned on seismic intensity .......................................... 157 7.5.2 Expected Annual Losses ................................................................................ 163 7.5.3 Present value of life-cycle costs ..................................................................... 166 7.5.4 Comparison to Non-ductile Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings .............. 168 7.5.5 Loss Toolbox Comparison ............................................................................. 170 7.5.6 Discussion of results relative to other loss estimation methodologies ........... 172 7.6 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 174 7.7 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 175 8 VARIABILITY OF ECONOMIC LOSSES........................................................... 178 8.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER ................................................................................... 178 8.2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 178 8.3 TYPES OF LOSS VARIABILITY & CORRELATIONS ................................................. 180 8.3.1 Variability and Correlations in Construction Costs ....................................... 181 8.3.2 Variability and Correlation in Response Parameters ..................................... 189 8.3.3 Variability and Correlations in Damage Estimation ...................................... 198 8.4 VARIABILITY OF LOSS METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 200 8.4.1 Mean annual frequency of loss & loss dispersion condition on seismic intensity ...................................................................................................................... 200 8.4.2 Dispersion of loss conditioned on collapse .................................................... 201 8.4.3 Dispersion of loss conditioned on non-collapse............................................. 202 8.4.4 Monte Carlo simulation method..................................................................... 211 8.4.5 Evaluation of quality of FOSM approximations ............................................ 212 8.5 DISPERSIONS OF ECONOMIC LOSS FOR EXAMPLE 4-STORY BUILDING .................. 223 8.5.1 Variability of loss conditioned on non-collapse at the DBE .......................... 224 8.5.2 Variability of loss conditioned on non-collapse as a function of IM ............. 233 8.5.3 Variability of loss conditioned on collapse as a function of IM .................... 237 8.5.4 Variability of loss as a function of IM & MAF of loss .................................. 240 8.6 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 244 9 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL DRIFTS IN BUILDING EARTHQUAKE LOSS ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................... 246 9.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 246 9.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 248 9.3 APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................... 252 9.3.1 Description of Buildings Studied ................................................................... 252 9.3.2 Results ............................................................................................................ 255 9.3.3 Sensitivity of Loss to Changes in the Probability of Demolition ................... 264 9.3.4 Limitations of results & discussion of residual drift estimations ................... 268 9.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 269 10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 271 10.1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 271 10.2 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 272 10.2.1 Story-based Loss Estimation...................................................................... 272 10.2.2 Improved Fragilities in support of EDP-DV Function Formulation .......... 273
vii
10.2.3 Implementing loss estimation methods into computer tool ....................... 275 10.2.4 Benchmarking losses ................................................................................. 275 10.2.5 Improved estimates on the uncertainty of loss ........................................... 276 10.2.6 Accounting for Non-collapse losses due to building demolition ............... 278 10.3 FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS .................................................................................. 279 10.3.1 Data collection for fragility functions and repair costs .............................. 280 10.3.2 Improvements to building-specific loss estimation methodology ............. 281 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 283 APPENDIX A: COST DISTRIBUTIONS FOR EDP-DV FUNCTIONS .................. A-1 APPENDIX B: GENERIC STORY EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ....................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: SUBCONTRACTOR EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ................................... C-1
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 EXAMPLE BUILDING AND STORY COST DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MID-RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS ........... 26 TABLE 3.2 EXAMPLE COMPONENT COST DISTRIBUTION FOR A TYPICAL STORY IN A MID-RISE OFFICE
BUILDING
...........................................................................................................................................27
TABLE 3.3 FRAGILITY FUNCTION & EXPECTED REPAIR COST (NORMALIZED BY COMPONENT REPLACEMENT
COST) PARAMETERS FOR DUCTILE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ......................................................... 28
COST) PARAMETERS FOR NON -DUCTILE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ..................................................28
COST) PARAMETERS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ................................................................. 29
TABLE 4.1 PROPERTIES OF EXPERIMENTAL SPECIMENS CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY ................................... 60 TABLE 4.2 INTERSTORY DRIFTS AT EACH DAMAGE STATE FOR EACH SPECIMEN .......................................... 61 TABLE 4.3 UNCORRECTED STATISTICAL PARAMETERS FOR IDRS CORRESPONDING TO THE DAMAGE STATES
FOR PRE-NORTHRIDGE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS...................................................................................64
TABLE 4.4 SUMMARY OF YOUSEF ET AL.S BUILDING SURVEY RESULTS FOR TYPICAL GIRDER SIZES OF EXISTING BUILDINGS .........................................................................................................................68 TABLE 4.5 REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDRY AND L/DB .................................69 TABLE 4.6 RECOMMENDED STATISTICAL PARAMETERS FOR FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS ................................... 69 TABLE 4.7 AVERAGE VALUES FOR PARAMETERS IN EQUATION (9), RELATING L/DB AND IDR .....................71 TABLE 5.1 CSMIP BUILDING PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................83 TABLE 5.2 GENERAL DAMAGE CLASSIFICATIONS (ATC-13, 1985) .............................................................84 TABLE 5.3 ATC-13 DAMAGES STATES (ATC, 1985) ..................................................................................84 TABLE 5.4 OCCUPANCY TYPES AND CODES (ATC-38) ...............................................................................85 TABLE 5.5 MODEL BUILDING TYPES (ATC-38) ..........................................................................................86 TABLE 5.6 FORMULAS USED FOR ESTIMATING STRUCTURAL BUILDING PARAMETERS ...............................97 TABLE 5.7 PARAMETERS FOR SAMPLE FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS COMPUTED DIRECTLY AND WITH
ADJUSTMENTS FROM DATA FOR ACCLERATION NONSTRUCTRAL COMPONENTS (FROM CSMIP). ...... 111
TABLE 5.8 FRAGILITY FUNCTION PARAMETERS GENERATED FROM THE CSMIP DATA. ............................ 114 TABLE 5.9 FRAGILITY FUNCTION STATISTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SUBSETS OF ATC-38 DATA .................. 117
ix
TABLE 7.1 ARCHETYPE DESIGN PROPERTIES AND PARAMETERS ................................................................ 149 TABLE 7.2 COST ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURES STUDIED ........................................................................... 152 TABLE 7.3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN INFORMATION AND COLLAPSE RESULTS (HASELTON AND DEIERLEIN 2007) ......................................................................................................................................................... 155 TABLE 7.4 EXPECTED LOSSES AND INTENSITY LEVELS .............................................................................. 156 TABLE 7.5 COMPARISON OF ASSUMED REPAIR COSTS FOR FINAL DAMAGE STATE OF GROUPS OF
COMPONENTS OF THE BASELINE 4-STORY BUILDINGS, NORMALIZED BY BUILDING REPLACEMENT VALUE .............................................................................................................................................. 172
TABLE 8.1 STATISTICAL DATA OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER SUBCONTRACTOR (TOURAN & SUPHOT, 1997) ......................................................................................................................................................... 182 TABLE 8.2 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SUBCONTRACTORS ......................................................................................................................................................... 183 TABLE 8.3 EXAMPLE COST DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTORS OF EACH
COMPONENT IN A TYPICAL STORY OF AN OFFICE BUILDING .............................................................. 184
TABLE 8.4 AVERAGE OF EDP CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM 1000 REALIZATIONS ...........................194 TABLE 8.5 STANDARD DEVIATION OF EDP CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM 1000 REALIZATIONS ....... 195 TABLE 8.6 COMPARISON OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ECONOMIC LOSS DUE TO EDP VARIABILITY ONLY
USING FOSM (LOCAL DERIVATIVE) AND SIMULATION METHODS ..................................................... 218
TABLE 8.7 COMPARISON OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ECONOMIC LOSS DUE TO EDP VARIABILITY ONLY
USING FOSM (AVERAGE SLOPE) AND SIMULATION METHODS .......................................................... 219
TABLE 8.8 COMPARISON OF INHERENT SUBCONTRACTOR LOSS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS DUE TO EDP
VARIABILITY BETWEEN ANALYTICAL AND SIMULATION RESULTS .................................................... 230
TABLE 9.1COST ESTIMATES FOR BUILDINGS STUDIED ...............................................................................254 TABLE 9.2 SUMMARY TABLE FOR EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSS RESULTS AT DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE) AS A PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING REPLACEMENT VALUE ........................................................ 256
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1 PEER METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................18 FIGURE 3.2 STORY EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR TYPICAL FLOORS IN MID-RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH
DUCTILE REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT RESISTING PERIMETER FRAMES . ......................................34
FIGURE 3.3 EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR LOW-RISE, MID-RISE AND HIGH RISE DUCTILE REINFORCED CONCRETE
MOMENT FRAME OFFICE BUILDINGS ...................................................................................................36
FIGURE 3.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN DUCTILE AND NON-DUCTILE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT EDP-DV
FUNCTIONS OF TYPICAL FLOORS .........................................................................................................37
FIGURE 3.5 COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL EDP-DV FUNCTIONS BETWEEN PERIMETER AND SPACE FRAME
TYPE STRUCTURES ..............................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 3.6 INFLUENCE OF VARYING ASSUMED GRAVITY LOAD ON SLAB-COLUMN SUBASSEMBLIES ON

STRUCTURAL EDP-DV FUNCTIONS .................................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 3.7 HYPOTHETICAL FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS OF SPATIALLY INTERACTING COMPONENTS (SPRINKLERS & SUSPENDED LIGHTING) (A) EXAMPLE WHERE LOSSES ARE UNAFFECTED (B) EXAMPLE WHEN LOSSES
ARE CONDITIONAL ..............................................................................................................................42
FIGURE 3.8 PROBABILITY TREE FOR COMPONENTS CONSIDERED TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY ..........................44 FIGURE 3.9 PROBABILITY TREE FOR INDEPENDENT COMPONENTS THAT USE DOUBLE-COUNTING TO
ACCOUNT FOR DEPENDENCY
.............................................................................................................. 45
FIGURE 3.10 PROBABILITY TREE FOR PROPOSED APPROACH TO ACCOUNT FOR DEPENDENT COMPONENTS ..46 FIGURE 3.11 EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF HANDLING COMPONENT
DEPENDENCY...................................................................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 3.12 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FOR PRE-NORTHRIDGE STEEL BEAMS AND PARTITIONS ...................... 48 FIGURE 3.13 PROBABILITY TREE FOR PROPOSED APPROACH, INCLUDING OTHER DS3 PARTITION-LIKE
COMPONENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 49
FIGURE 3.14 EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR PROPOSED APPROACH VS TREATING COMPONENTS INDEPENDENTLY ,
WITH DS3 PARTITION-LIKE COMPONENTS INCLUDED. ........................................................................49
FIGURE 4.1 TYPICAL DETAIL OF PRE-NORTHRIDGE MOMENT RESISTING BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINT .........54 FIGURE 4.2 TYPICAL TEST SETUPS (A) SINGLE SIDED (B) DOUBLE SIDED ................................................... 59 FIGURE 4.3 YIELDING WITHOUT CORRECTION FOR SPAN-TO-DEPTH RATIO (A) A36 (B) A572 GRADE 50 . 65
xi
FIGURE 4.4 SPAN-TO-DEPTH RATIOS RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTORY DRIFT (A) A36 (B) A572 GRADE 50 67 FIGURE 4.5 RECOMMENDED FRAGILITY FUNCTION CORRECTED FOR SPAN-TO-DEPTH RATIO WITH 90%
CONFIDENCE BANDS ...........................................................................................................................69
FIGURE 4.6 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FOR
TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ANALYTICAL PREDICTION
OF IDRY (A) A36 (B) A572 GRADE 50.................................................................................................73
FIGURE 4.7 EXAMPLE FRAGILITY FUNCTION FOR W36 BEAM GENERATED BY USING (A572 GRADE 50) .. 74 FIGURE 4.8 FRAGILITY FUNCTION FOR FRACTURE ......................................................................................75 FIGURE 4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDR AT FRACTURE AND BEAM DEPTH FOR ALL SPECIMENS . ..............76 FIGURE 4.10 RECOMMENDED FRAGILITY FUNCTION CORRECTED FOR BEAM DEPTH WITH 90% CONFIDENCE
BANDS ................................................................................................................................................77
FIGURE 4.11 EXAMPLE CORRECTED FRAGILITY FOR W36 WHEN BEAM DEPTH IS KNOWN. ..........................77 FIGURE 5.1 CONTINUOUS MODEL USED TO EVALUATE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE .........................................87 FIGURE 5.2 EXAMPLE OF SIMULATED STRUCTURAL RESPONSE COMPARED TO RECORDED RESPONSE ....... 88 FIGURE 5.3 CSMIP BUILDING RESPONSE COMPARISON SUMMARY SHEET LAYOUT ..................................90 FIGURE 5.4 CSMIP BUILDING SUMMARY SHEET LAYOUT .......................................................................... 93 FIGURE 5.5 EXAMPLE OF RESULTS FROM SIMULATED STRUCTURAL RESPONSE. ........................................ 98 FIGURE 5.6 ATC-38 BUILDING SUMMARY SHEET LAYOUT ......................................................................100 FIGURE 5.7 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSERVED VALUES AND VALUES PREDICTED BY A LOGNORMAL
DISTRIBUTION FOR DAMAGE STATE DS2 OF DRIFT-SENSITIVE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BASED ON DATA FROM CSMIP. ................................................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 5.8 DEVELOPING FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS USING THE BOUNDING EDPS METHOD. .......................... 106 FIGURE 5.9 LIMITATIONS OF FINDING UNIQUE SOLUTIONS FOR FRAGILITY FUNCTION PARAMETERS (A)
MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS FOR LEAST SQUARES AND MAXIMUM LIKELIKHOOD METHODS (B) MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS FOR BOUNDED EDP S METHOD........................................................................................ 108
FIGURE 5.10 SAMPLE COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT METHODS TO FORMULATE FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS (A)
EXAMPLE OF ALL THREE METHODS AGREEING (B) EXAMPLE OF 2 OUT OF 3 METHODS AGREEING . .... 109
FIGURE 5.11 (A) SAMPLE FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS COMPUTED FROM DATA FOR ACCLERATION
NONSTRUCTRAL COMPONENTS (FROM CSMIP) (B) SAMPLE FUNCTIONS AFTER ADJUSTMENTS. .......111
FIGURE 5.12 CSMIP FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FOR (A) STRUCTURAL DAMAGE VS. IDR (B) NONSTRUCTURAL DAMAGE VS. IDR AND (C) NONSTRUCTURAL VS. PBA. ................................................................... 113 FIGURE 5.13 EXAMPLE OF ATC-38 DATA SHOWING LIMITATIONS OF DATA .............................................. 116 FIGURE 5.14 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS USING SUBSETS OF ATC-38 DATA BASED ON TYPE OF STRUCTURAL
SYSTEM (A) C-1: CONCRETE MOMENT FRAMES DRIFT-SENSITIVE (B) S-1: STEEL MOMENT FRAMES DRIFT-SENSITIVE (C) C-1: CONCRETE MOMENT FRAMES ACCELERATION -SENSITIVE (D) S-1: STEEL MOMENT FRAMES ACCELERATION-SENSITIVE ................................................................................ 117
FIGURE 5.15 COMPARISON TO HAZUS GENERIC FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS ..................................................119 FIGURE 6.1 LOSS ESTIMATION TOOLBOX PROGRAM STRUCTURE ............................................................. 122
xii
FIGURE 6.2 BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION MODULE ................................................................................ 125 FIGURE 6.3 EDP-DV FUNCTION EDITOR MODULE ..................................................................................... 126 FIGURE 6.4 ADDING EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ................................................................................................ 127 FIGURE 6.5 VIEWING / EDITING / DELETING EDP-DV FUNCTIONS ............................................................ 128 FIGURE 6.6 MAIN WINDOW OF TOOLBOX ................................................................................................... 129 FIGURE 6.7 DEFINING THE SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE .................................................................................. 131 FIGURE 6.8 IMPORTING RESPONSE SIMULATION DATA. .............................................................................. 134 FIGURE 6.9 COLLAPSE FRAGILITY ADJUSTMENTS AND EDP EXTRAPOLATION OPTIONS ............................136 FIGURE 6.10 RESPONSE SIMULATION VISUALIZATION. ..............................................................................137 FIGURE 6.11 ASSIGNING EDP-DV FUNCTIONS. ......................................................................................... 138 FIGURE 6.12 LOSS ESTIMATION MODULE - INCLUDING BUILDING DEMOLITION LOSSES GIVEN THAT THE
STRUCTURE HAS NOT COLLAPSED.....................................................................................................139
FIGURE 6.13 TOTAL AND DISAGGREGATION RESULTS FOR EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSSES AS A FUNCTION OF
GROUND MOTION INTENSITY ............................................................................................................ 141
FIGURE 6.14 TOTAL AND DISAGGREGATION RESULTS FOR EXPECTED ANNUAL LOSSES . ............................ 142 FIGURE 7.1 GROUND MOTION PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD CURVES (GOULET ET AL., 200&) ............ 148 FIGURE 7.2 EXAMPLE ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS ............................................. 151 FIGURE 7.3 PEAK EDPS ALONG BUILDING HEIGHT FOR DESIGN 4-S-20-A-G (HAZELTON AND DEIERLEIN, 2007) ............................................................................................................................................... 153 FIGURE 7.4 COLLAPSE FRAGILITIES FOR 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 AND 20 STORY SPACE-FRAME BUILDINGS (HASELTON
AND DEIERLEIN, 2007) ..................................................................................................................... 154
FIGURE 7.5 EXPECTED LOSS GIVEN IM FOR 4-S-20-A-G (WITH COLLAPSE LOSS DISAGGREGATION) ......... 157 FIGURE 7.6 NORMALIZED EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSS RESULTS AT DBE FOR 30 CODE-CONFORMING RC
FRAME STRUCTURES ......................................................................................................................... 158
FIGURE 7.7 EFFECT OF HEIGHT ON NORMALIZED EXPECTED LOSSES CONDITIONED ON GROUND MOTION
INTENSITY: (A) SPACE FRAMES AS A FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED GROUND MOTION INTENSITY (B)
PERIMETER FRAMES AS A FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED GROUND MOTION INTENSITY (C) NORMALIZED

LOSSES AT THE DBE AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT (D) COMPARISON OF PEAK IDRS BETWEEN 4 & 12STORY SPACE-FRAME BUILDINGS TO ILLUSTRATE CONCENTRATION OF LATERAL DEFORMATIONS . .. 160
FIGURE 7.8 EFFECT OF STRONG-COLUMN, WEAK-BEAM RATIO ON: (A) NORMALIZED EXPECTED LOSS AS A
FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED GROUND MOTION INTENSITY (B) NORMALIZED EXPECTED LOSS AT THE
DBE, DISAGGREGATED BY COLLAPSE & NON-COLLAPSE LOSSES. .................................................... 161 FIGURE 7.9 EFFECT OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR ON NORMALIZED EXPECTED LOSS AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND
MOTION INTENSITY ........................................................................................................................... 162
FIGURE 7.10 EAL RESULTS FOR 30 CODE-CONFORMING RC FRAME STRUCTURES .................................... 164 FIGURE 7.11 RESULTS OF MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF COLLAPSE FOR 30 CODE-CONFORMING RC FRAME
STRUCTURES (HASELTON AND DEIERLEIN, 2007). ........................................................................... 165
xiii
FIGURE 7.12 SCATTER PLOTS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN: (A) EAL & MAF OF COLLAPSE (B) MAF OF COLLAPSE & YIELD BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENT (C) EAL & YIELD BASE SHEAR
COEFFICIENT .................................................................................................................................... 166
FIGURE 7.13 PRESENT VALUE OF NORMALIZED ECONOMIC LOSSES OVER 50 YEARS FOR 30 CODE CONFORMING RC FRAME STRUCTURES: (A) PRESENT VALUE OF LOSSES FOR EACH BUILDING AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 3% (B) RANGE OF PRESENT VALUE OF LOSSES AS A FUNCTION OF DISCOUNT RATE
(EXCLUDING DESIGN NUMBER 4). ..................................................................................................... 167 FIGURE 7.14 COMPARISON BETWEEN NORMALIZED ECONOMIC LOSS RESULTS BETWEEN MODERN, DUCTILE (2003) AND OLDER, NON-DUCTILE REINFORCE CONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURES: (A) EXPECTED LOSS
AT DBE (B) EAL .............................................................................................................................. 169
FIGURE 7.15 COMPARISON OF EAL DISAGGREGATION OF COLLAPSE AND NON-COLLAPSE LOSSES FOR NONDUCTILE AND DUCTILE FRAMES ........................................................................................................ 170
FIGURE 7.16 COMPARISON OF VULNERABILITY CURVES FROM THIS STUDY AND FROM MDLA: (A)
PERIMETER FRAMES (B) SPACE FRAMES ............................................................................................ 171
1.
FIGURE 8.1 CORRELATION BETWEEN SUBCONTRACTOR LOSSES DUE TO EDP VARIANCE (A) EDP-DV
FUNCTION FOR SUBCONTRACTOR K (B) EDP-DV FUNCTION FOR SUBCONTRACTOR K' ..................... 187
FIGURE 8.2 EDP DATA FROM INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AT INCREASING IM LEVELS ................. 190 FIGURE 8.3 EXAMPLE OF EDP RELATIONSHIPS WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CORRELATION ...................... 191 FIGURE 8.4 CORRELATION TRENDS AT LOW AND HIGH SEISMIC INTENSITY LEVELS...................................192 FIGURE 8.5 VARIATION OF EDP CORRELATION WITH INTENSITY LEVEL ....................................................193 FIGURE 8.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVERAGE AND STANDARD ERROR OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
ESTIMATES .......................................................................................................................................195
FIGURE 8.7 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 97.5TH AND 2.5TH PERCENTILES CONFIDENCE BANDS WITH MEDIAN
ESTIMATES OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
.................................................................................... 196
FIGURE 8.8 CONFIDENCE BANDS USING CLOSED FORM SOLUTION FOR DIFFERENT NUMBER OF GROUND
MOTIONS (A) BANDS FOR N = 10, 20, 40 AND 80 (B) COMPARISON WITH DATA FROM EXAMPLE BUILDING. ........................................................................................................................................ 198
FIGURE 8.9 EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR ACCELERATION-SENSITIVE COMPONENTS IN A TYPICAL FLOOR FOR
THE EXAMPLE 4-STORY REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME OFFICE BUILDING ...... 206
FIGURE 8.10 EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR DRIFT-SENSITIVE COMPONENTS IN A TYPICAL FLOOR FOR THE
EXAMPLE 4-STORY REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME OFFICE BUILDING ............. 207
FIGURE 8.11 FOSM APPROXIMATIONS (A) LINEAR FUNCTION (B) NON-LINEAR FUNCTION ........................ 215 FIGURE 8.12 COMPUTING THE DERIVATIVE OF G(X) (A) LOCAL DERIVATIVE (B) AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN
REGION THAT X WILL MOST LIKELY OCCUR IN. ................................................................................217
FIGURE 8.13 TYPICAL CASES OF EDP-DV FUNCTIONS FOR FOSM APPROXIMATIONS (A) UNDER-ESTIMATE
AT SMALL VALUES (B) OVER-ESTIMATE AT LARGE VALUES (C) GOOD APPROXIMATION AT MIDDLE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................220
xiv
FIGURE 8.14 QUANTITATIVE EXAMPLES OF FOSM APPROXIMATIONS USING THE DIFFERENT SLOPE
METHODS
......................................................................................................................................... 221
FIGURE 8.15 STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH SUBCONTRACTOR LOSS (A) DISPERSIONS DUE TO EDP
VARIANCE (B) DISPERSIONS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION COST VARIANCE ............................................... 225
FIGURE 8.16 MEAN VALUES OF ECONOMIC LOSS FOR EACH SUBCONTRACTOR AT THE DBE .....................227 FIGURE 8.17 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATIONS FOR EACH SUBCONTRACTOR LOSS (A) DISPERSIONS DUE TO EDP
VARIANCE (B) DISPERSIONS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION COST VARIANCE .............................................. 228
FIGURE 8.18 EFFECT OF SUBCONTRACTOR CORRELATION DUE TO EDP VARIABILITY .............................. 229 FIGURE 8.19 STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF LOSS CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE AT THE DBE CONSIDERING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF VARIABILITY AND CORRELATIONS
.................................................................. 231
FIGURE 8.20 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION OF LOSS CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE AT THE DBE

CONSIDERING DIFFERENT TYPES OF VARIABILITY AND CORRELATIONS ............................................ 231
FIGURE 8.21 STANDARD DEVIATION OF LOSS CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND

MOTION INTENSITY (A) EDP VARIABILITY ONLY (B) CONSTRUCTION COST VARIABILITY ONLY (C)
EDP & COST VARIABILITY (D) EDP & COST VARIABILITY WITH EDP CORRELATIONS (E) EDP & COST
VARIABILITY WITH CONSTRUCTION COST CORRELATIONS (F) EDP & COST VARIABILITY WITH EDP & COST CORRELATIONS........................................................................................................................ 234
FIGURE 8.22 ECONOMIC LOSS STANDARD DEVIATIONS CONDITIONED ON NON -COLLAPSE (NORMALIZED BY
THE BUILDING REPLACEMENT VALUE) AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND MOTION INTENSITY BASED ON THE RESULTS FROM THE SIMULATION METHOD . ...................................................................................... 236
FIGURE 8.23 ECONOMIC LOSS STANDARD DEVIATIONS CONDITIONED ON NON -COLLAPSE (NORMALIZED BY
THE BUILDING REPLACEMENT VALUE) AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND MOTION INTENSITY FOR VALUES OF
SA(T1) 1.0G BASED ON THE RESULTS FROM THE SIMULATION METHOD. ........................................ 237 FIGURE 8.24 NORMALIZED STANDARD DEVIATION FOR OF LOSS (A) CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE (B)
CONDITIONED ON COLLAPSE............................................................................................................. 239
FIGURE 8.25 NORMALIZED EXPECTED LOSS AND DISPERSION GIVEN IM FOR EXAMPLE 4-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING
......................................................................................................................................... 241
FIGURE 8.26 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION AS A FUNCTION OF INTENSITY LEVEL FOR EXAMPLE BUILDING . 242 FIGURE 8.27 MAF OF LOSS (A) EFFECT OF CORRELATIONS (B) COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL AND
SIMULATION METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 243
FIGURE 9.1: PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE FOR DUCTILE 4-STORY REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE (HASELTON AND DEIERLEIN, 2007) .................................................................................................255 FIGURE 9.2: EDP DATA AS A FUNCTION OF BUILDING HEIGHT FOR DUCTILE 4-STORY REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURE (HASELTON AND DEIERLEIN, 2007).............................................................255
FIGURE 9.3 NORMALIZED EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSS AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND MOTION INTENSITY . .. 257
xv
FIGURE 9.4 EFFECT OF CONSIDERING LOSS DUE TO DEMOLITION CONDITIONED ON NON -COLLAPSE ON
NORMALIZED EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSSES FOR A 4-STORY BUILDING AT THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SEISMIC INTENSITY. ..................................................................................................................... 258
FIGURE 9.5 COMPARISON OF THE PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE WITH THE PROBABILITY OF BUILDING BEING
DEMOLISHED DUE TO RESIDUAL DEFORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND MOTION INTENSITY .
...260
FIGURE 9.6 EFFECT OF CONSIDERING LOSS DUE TO DEMOLITION CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE ON

NORMALIZED EXPECTED ECONOMIC LOSSES FOR A 12-STORY BUILDING AT THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SEISMIC INTENSITY. ..................................................................................................................... 261
FIGURE 9.7 LOSS RESULTS FOR NON-DUCTILE BUILDINGS STUDIED (A) 4- STORY (B) 12-STORY ................ 262 FIGURE 9.8 COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE AND THE PROBABILITY OF
DEMOLITION FOR (A) A 4-STORY DUCTILE STRUCTURE (B) A 12-STORY DUCTILE STRUCTURE (C) A 4STORY NON-DUCTILE STRUCTURE AND (D) A 12 STORY NON-DUCTILE STRUCTURE. .........................264
FIGURE 9.9 DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PROBABILITY OF DEMOLITION GIVEN RIDR (A) VARYING THE
MEDIAN (B) VARYING THE DISPERSION ............................................................................................266
FIGURE 9.10 RESULTS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF PROBABILITY OF DEMOLITION GIVEN RIDR FOR 4STORY DUCTILE REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT FRAME OFFICE BUILDING. ..................................267
xvi
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 MOTIVATION & BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvements in seismic design codes (e.g. better detailing requirements) that translate in better earthquake performance of modern buildings compared to older structures, important deficiencies still exist. One of the inherent and underlying problems with current structural design practice is that seismic performance is not explicitly quantified. Instead, building codes rely on prescriptive criteria and overly simplified methods of analysis and design that result in an inconsistent level of performance (Haselton and Deierlein, 2005). One way of quantifying earthquake performance that has been proposed by recent research (Krawinkler and Miranda 2004, Aslani and Miranda 2005, Mitrani-Reiser and Beck 2007) is using economic losses as a metric to gauge how well structural systems respond when subjected to seismic ground motions. While society and building owners main concern is the protection of life, there are other risks that have traditionally been ignored in earthquake-resistant design. Namely, current seismic design practice does not attempt to control economic loses or specify an acceptable level of probability that a structure maintains its functionality after an earthquake. During recent earthquakes in California, Loma Prieta in 1989 ($12 billion, 2008 US dollars) and Northridge in 1994 ($19-29 billion), substantial monetary losses were incurred despite the relatively low loss in life (Insurance Information Institute, 2008). The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Mw=6.9) resulted in 63 deaths, more than 3000 injuries and produced between 8,000 and 12,000 homeless. The quake caused an estimated $6 billion to $13 billion in property damage (Benuska, 1990). Similarly, the 1994 Northridge earthquake resulted in 72 deaths and more than 9,000 injured including 1,600 that required hospitalization. The direct economic loss has been estimated to be more than $25 billion
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
(Hall, 1995).
Although the levels of ground motion intensity these seismic events
produced were considered relatively moderate, buildings experienced extensive structural damage requiring substantial repairs. A prominent example of how current design procedures fall short of building owners and users needs, was the nonstructural damage sustained by the Olive View Hospital during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Located in Sylmar, California, this six-story
structure was designed beyond minimum building code requirements in response to the structural failure of the previous Olive View Hospital building during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The replacement structures lateral force resisting systems consisted of a combination of moment frames with concrete and steel plate shearwalls. Although the building only experienced minor structural damage during the Northridge event, substantial nonstructural damage was sustained. Particularly, sprinkler heads, rigidly constrained by ceilings, ruptured when their connecting piping experienced large displacements. The resulting water leakage caused the hospital to temporarily shut down. Not only was the essential facility not able to treat injuries resulting form the earthquake, 377 patients being treated at the time of the earthquake had to be evacuated (Hall, 1995). While the structure conformed to building code standards for hospitals, the nonstructural damage resulted in the loss of functionality of an essential facility directly after a seismic event. This damage suffered by the Olive View Hospital illustrates how structural designs using prescriptive codes may not be enough to achieve satisfactory seismic performance. Damage, losses and loss of functionality sustained in these seismic events prompted structural engineers to formulate preliminary documents (Vision 2000, FEMA 273 & FEMA 356) that attempt to provide some guidance on how to achieve different levels of performance that help stakeholders and design professionals make better and more informed decisions that meet project-specific needs. Although these first generation
guidelines were a step towards making earthquake engineering adopt design approaches that are more performance-based, the performance levels defined in these documents were often qualitative, not well-defined and, consequently, open to subjectivity. Recent advancements in performance-based earthquake engineering methods have demonstrated the need for better quantitative measures of structural performance during seismic ground motions and improved methodologies to estimate seismic performance. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center has conducted a significant amount of research to address this need, by formulating a framework that quantifies
CHAPTER 1 2 Introduction
performance in metrics that are more relevant to stakeholders, namely, deaths (loss of life), dollars (economic losses) and downtime (temporary loss of use of the facility). The PEER methodology uses a probabilistic approach to estimate damage and the corresponding loss based on the seismic hazard and the structural response. PEERs work on performancebased earthquake engineering is currently being implemented into seismic design standards and guidelines by the Applied Technology Council through the ATC-58 project (ATC, 2007). Building-specific economic loss estimation methods have advanced in recent years. However, the process to calculate loss can become complicated because of the type and amount of required computations. Practicing structural engineers are hard-pressed to
devote extra time towards detailed loss estimations in addition to delivering the structural design. The successful adoption of performance-based design in the near future may hinge on simplifying the loss estimation procedures and minimizing the computational effort these procedures require.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The goals of this is investigation are to improve areas of PEERs economic loss estimation framework by incorporating aspects that have been previously ignored, and, to simplify it to decrease the amount of information required or time involved in performance estimations. The resulting methods are then implemented into a computer tool that
estimates earthquake-induced economic losses as a quantitative metric of structural performance. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows: Introduce a new approach of estimating earthquake-induced monetary loss that sums the losses by sub-contractor and by story, rather than by component, which is more consistent with the way costs of construction projects are calculated and requires less information to conduct the assessment. Develop a simplified methodology of estimating mean economic losses by consolidating fragility functions and normalized repair costs and collapsing out the intermediate step of estimating damage to generate functions that relate response simulation data directly to economic loss (EDP-DV functions). Account for loss of a buildings entire inventory, given that the structure has not collapsed, by developing generic fragility functions that estimate damage of
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
components that do not have specific fragilities. These fragilities will be derived by establishing when damage initiates using empirical data, and then inferring the probabilistic distribution parameters of more severe damage states. Develop a computer toolbox that implements the new approach and to make recommendations on how to address the computational challenges encountered. Use the newly developed methods and tools to evaluate seismic-induced economic losses of reinforced concrete moment frame buildings, including both ductile concrete frames (that conform to current building seismic codes) and non-ductile frames (that are representative of buildings built pre-1967 in California). Propose a method of quantifying uncertainty on economic losses that incorporates the correlations of construction costs at the building level. Cost correlations at the component level have previously been considered at the building component-level, however construction cost data is typically produced in terms of the entire building or per subcontractor. A new procedure to integrate this type of data into the computation of dispersion of economic losses is presented. Evaluate the influence of the number of ground motions considered during structural response analysis on the quality of estimates of response simulation correlations. Incorporate losses of a building that has not collapsed, but requires demolition due to excessive residual drifts.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION

This dissertation is a collection of research papers on improving, simplifying and implementing building-specific loss estimation methods. For chapters where co-authors have contributed to the body of work, credit is documented at the beginning of the chapter outlining the contributions of each author. Chapter 2 presents a brief literature review of previous studies in building-specific loss estimation methodologies and tools. The chapter chronologically outlines the most relevant studies conducted by previous investigators for estimating seismic-induced economic losses. Further, it summarizes the scope and limitations of the previous studies and identifies gaps in research that have not yet been addressed. Addressing these gaps in research provide the motivation for the objectives in this body of work.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Chapter 3 details the proposed method of simplifying PEERs current buildingspecific loss estimation methodology. It proposes collapsing out the intermediate step of estimating damage by making assumptions on the building cost distribution among floors, systems and components based on the buildings use, occupancy and structural system. The formulation of generic EDP-DV functions is presented and example functions for reinforced concrete moment frame office buildings are presented. The EDP-DV functions are investigated to see which parameters have the greatest influence and how the issue of conditional losses in spatially-interacting components affects the value of predicted loss. Chapter 4 supplements the EDP-DV functions presented in Chapter 3 by developing fragility functions for pre-Northridge beam-column joints. These functions can be used to predict damage for pre-1994 steel moment frame buildings that have been found to experience fracture at interstory drifts lower than previously expected. Results from previous experimental studies are consolidated to formulate lognormal cumulative distribution functions that predict yielding and fracture in these joints as a function of interstory drift. investigated. Chapter 5 addresses the issue of estimating damage for components that do not currently have fragility functions such that the entire building inventory is accounted for in EDP-DV functions. Generic fragility functions are derived from empirical data gathered during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Two sources of data are considered in this study. The first source generates motion-damage pairs from damage evaluations of instrumented buildings documenting seismic performance (Naeim 1998). The second source relates structural response to damage using damage data from the ATC-38 report (ATC 2000, which documents damage for structures located close to ground motion stations) and structural simulation to infer the response parameters. Functions are formulated for several types of component groups, however, fragilities for drift-sensitive and acceleration sensitive non-structural elements are of particular interest as these types of components typically lack enough data to predict damage. The generic fragility functions for non-structural elements presented here are used in Chapter 3 to supplement the formulation of the EDP-DV functions. They are used for building components that do not have specific fragilities generated from experimental data. Chapter 6 documents the implementation of the simplified method presented in Chapter 3, into an MS-EXCEL based computer tool. Despite the simplifications proposed
Other parameters that significantly influence the functions were also
in this study, the performance-based framework still involves many variables and several integrations that require a large amount of computation, necessitating a computer tool that can facilitate these calculations. The tool also has the capability of computing economic losses due to building demolition conditioned on non-collapse (as described in detail in Chapter 9). Chapter 7 presents economic seismic loss estimations for a set of archetypes of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings, designed and analyzed by previous investigators (Haselton and Deierlein, 2007, Liel and Deierlein, 2008), using the simplified method presented in Chapter 3 and the computer tool illustrated in Chapter 6. The results presented here are used to quantify loss results for both code-conforming structures, and non-ductile concrete structures, representing buildings of an older vintage. The study benchmarks performance in terms of economic loss for these types of structures, and attempts to identify building parameters that have the strongest influence on seismic performance. Chapter 8 presents a modified approach of incorporating correlations into the calculation of the uncertainty in predicting earthquake-induced economic losses. Aslani and Miranda (2005) first introduced methods on how to incorporate repair cost correlations at the component-level. However, estimates of these correlations at the component level are not available, and collecting this type of data can be difficult. There is, however, dispersion and correlation data available for construction costs between different construction trades at the building level (Touran and Suphot, 1997). The approach
proposed in this investigation attempts to incorporate these correlations at the building level, by first breaking down the costs associated with repair or replacement of each component into different construction trades. The dispersions are then aggregated and propagated for each trade until the uncertainty of the loss is calculated at the building level where the construction cost correlations can be included. The influence of accounting for these correlations on the loss dispersions is evaluated. The effect of correlations from simulation data is also evaluated and the appropriate number of ground motions considered in response simulation to accurately capture these correlations is investigated. Chapter 9 proposes modifying the PEER loss estimation framework to incorporate an intermediate building damage state in which demolition of a building becomes necessary when excessive damage that cannot be repaired has occurred. The proposed approach uses peak residual interstory drift as an engineering demand parameter to predict the likelihood
of having to demolish a building after an earthquake, given that the building has not collapsed. The simplified method of Chapter 3 is used to evaluate losses of example buildings taken from the study conducted in Chapter 6, to illustrate the effect of considering these types of losses. It is shown that incorporating losses to due possible demolition has a significant impact on predicted losses due to seismic ground motions. Chapter 10 summarizes the results and contributions from this investigation. Conclusions are drawn from these results and extended to identify what impact they have on the field earthquake engineering. Finally, areas of future research are identified to lay the groundwork for future investigators.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
CHAPTER 2
2 PREVIOUS WORK ON LOSS ESTIMATION
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Current loss estimation methodologies can be categorized in two main types: methodologies for regional loss estimation and methodologies for building-specific loss estimation. Because regional methods do not provide the necessary level of detail required by performance-based earthquake engineering (Aslani and Miranda, 2005), only a brief review of these approaches is included here. This literature review primarily focuses on previous studies in building-specific loss estimation. Although the review does not
document all previous research that has conducted on economic loss estimation, it attempts to summarize the studies that directly influenced the direction of this dissertation and does not discount the importance of other investigations that are not mentioned here,
2.2 REGIONAL LOSS ESTIMATION

Regional loss estimation attempts to quantify losses for a large number of buildings within a specific geographic area. One of the first major studies that attempted to do this was the study by Algermissen et al. (1972) which provided damage and loss estimates for six scenario earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area (on the San Andreas & Hayward Faults, with magnitudes 8.3. 7.0 and 6.0 on each fault). Although the study focused primarily on injuries and casualties, economic losses were evaluated as well. Monetary losses from repair costs were provided primarily for wood frame structures. This study was the first of several similar studies to estimate seismic-induced losses in major metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, Salt Lake City & Puget Sound).
CHAPTER 2
Previous Work in Loss Estimation
One of the first investigations to explicitly consider the probabilistic nature of seismic-induced monetary losses was the study by Whitman et al. (1973), which introduced the concept of damage probability matrices into loss estimation methodology. These
damage probability matrices were developed for 5-story buildings with the following structural systems: reinforced concrete moment frames, reinforced concrete shear walls and steel moment frames. In this study, damage ratios were used to describe the amount of estimated damage and seismic intensity was expressed as a function of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). Mean damage ratios were calculated for buildings in the San Francisco Bay area and the Boston area to illustrate the use of this procedure. The Applied Technology Council (ATC) conducted a study that provided data to evaluate earthquake damage for California (ATC-13, 1985). The report developed a facility classification scheme for 91 different types of facility classes (e.g. industrial, commercial, residentialetc.). Damage probability matrices and the estimated amounts of time to repair damaged facilities were constructed for the different classifications of structures. The damage probability matrices, relating ground motion intensity to level of damage were developed by expert opinion using a Delphi procedure. Damage estimation as a function of MMI was then conducted using these matrices for different types of facilities in California. ATC-13 also reviewed several inventory sources and introduced a method for estimating large building inventories from economic data. The report provided a detailed description of the inventory information, which is necessary when evaluating regional losses. In 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) began funding the development of a geographic information system (GIS)-based regional loss estimation methodology (Whitman et al. 1997), which eventually was implemented in the widely-used computer tool, HAZUS (National Institute of Building Sciences, 1997). Based on a buildings lateral force resisting system, height and occupancy, structural response and damage are calculated using preestablished capacity and fragility functions to determine economic losses as a function of the peak response of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems (i.e., spectral ordinates). Generalizing buildings in this manner provides a simple and widely applicable way of estimating loss; however, it does not capture unique and important aspects of a specific buildings structural and nonstructural design.
CHAPTER 2
2.3 BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION

One of the first building-specific loss estimation methodologies was developed by Scholl et al. (1982). The authors of this report developed and suggested improvements to both empirical and theoretical loss estimation procedures. Part of the theoretical studies included an in depth study of developing damage functions for a variety of building components based on experimental test data. The report recommends a probabilistic,
component-based method of evaluating damage, and demonstrated applications of this method. Three example buildings (the Bank of California Building and two hotel
buildings) damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake were used to illustrate the proposed damage-prediction methodology. To develop the theoretical motion-damage
relationships, only elastic analyses in combination with response spectrum analysis (using spectral displacement to as the spectral ordinate) were used to estimate structural response at each floor of each building being considered. The resulting relationships measured damage using a damage factor, which is the ratio between the repair costs induced by earthquake damage and the replacement value of the building. The method proposed by Scholl et al. (1982) required component damage functions (i.e. component fragility functions), to estimate damage on a component-by-component basis. In conjunction with the Scholl et al. (1982) study, Kutsu et al. (1982) collected laboratory test data to estimate damage in various high-rise building components to implement the proposed component-based methodology. The investigators consolidated experimental data for components commonly found in high-rise buildings and statistically determined central tendency and variability values of exceeding particular levels of damage in these components. The components evaluated included the following: reinforced
concrete structural members (beams, columns and shear walls), steel frames, masonry walls, drywall partitions and glazing. Based on published building cost data, the study also statistically determined proportions of construction costs for these components. This
information was then used in combination with the damage functions to calculate the overall damage factor of the component (damage as percentage of the replacement values of the component). Although no building damage results were produced by Kutsu et al. (1982), these relationships were subsequently used by Scholl et al. (1982) to develop the theoretical motion-damage relationships for the three example buildings mentioned previously, using rudimentary elastic analyses to approximate the structural response
CHAPTER 2
10
parameters. These relationships are limited because the analyses used do not capture higher-mode effects and damage due to nonlinear behavior. A scenario-based loss estimation methodology assessing monetary losses of a building from its structural response from a particular earthquake ground motion was introduced by Gunturi and Shah (1993). Damage to building components, categorized into structural, nonstructural and contents elements, was calculated by obtaining structural response parameters at each story from a nonlinear time history analysis, by scaling the record to peak ground acceleration (PGA) levels of 0.4g, 0.5g and 0.6g. The response parameters were related to damage levels for each component and loss was calculated per story and summed to get the total building loss. An energy-based damage index developed by Park and Ang (1985) was used to estimate damage in structural elements, while interstory drift and peak floor accelerations were used to assess nonstructural damage. Several strategies to map these damage indices to monetary losses, including a probabilistic approach, but based on the available data at the time the study was published, a deterministic mapping primarily based on expert opinion was used for the example buildings presented. Losses were assessed for several reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as examples to illustrate their approach. Although their study examined damage variation with different ground motions for one of the example buildings presented, the frequency at which ground motions occur was not accounted for. The variability in ground motions, as it relates to assessing economic losses for buildings, was addressed in a study by Singhal and Kiremidjian (1996). A systematic approach to developing motion-damage relationships was proposed by subjecting a structure to a suite of simulated ground motions, and obtaining its probabilistic response using Monte Carlo simulation. Methods for two types of motion-damage relationships, building-level fragility curves and damage probability matrices (DPMs), were developed. Each type of relationship predicted the probability of exceeding discrete damage states. These damage states were defined using ranges of damage indices that quantified buildinglevel damage as the ratio between repair costs over the total replacement value of the building. For the fragility curves, root mean square (RMS) acceleration and spectral
acceleration for a specified structural period range are used to characterize earthquake ground motion. MMI was used as the ground motion parameter for the DPMs. Artificial ground motions were generated using models that included the stationary Gaussian model with modulating functions and the autoregressive moving-average (ARMA). Structural
CHAPTER 2 11 Previous Work in Loss Estimation
response was computed using nonlinear dynamic analysis using DRAIN-2DX. Park and Angs (1985) index was used to relate this response to damage level and to predict the probability of damage occurring. Fragility curves and DPMs were generated for reinforced concrete frame structures, classified into low-rise (defined in this study as 1-3 stories tall), mid-rise (4-7 stories) and high-rise (8 stories or taller) categories. However, these curves only account for structural damage do not consider damage due to nonstructural building components. Porter and Kiremidjian (2001) introduced an assembly-based framework that is fully probabilistic. It also incorporates the uncertainty stemming from estimating building damage and the associated repair costs, which previously had not been considered. Monte Carlo simulation was used within this framework to predict building-specific relationships between expected loss and seismic intensity (also known as vulnerability curves). Techniques to develop fragility functions for common building assemblies were presented and used to predict losses for an example office building. Ground motions used in the examples presented in this study were simulated using the ARMA model to generate the number of artificial time histories necessary to run structural analyses. Depending on the structural response parameter of interest, the study used both linear and non-linear dynamic analyses to compute peak structural responses. A simplified, deterministic sensitivity
analysis was also conducted to investigate which sources of uncertainty have the largest effect on loss results; the uncertainty of the ground motion intensity was found to have the largest influence. In the framework proposed by Porter and Kiremidjian (2001) no attempt is made to explicitly compute the probability of collapse. As part of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) centers effort to establish performance-based assessment methods, Aslani and Miranda (2005) developed a component-based methodology that incorporated the effects of collapse on monetary loss by explicitly estimating the probability of collapse at increasing levels of ground motion intensity. Both sidesway collapse and loss of vertical carrying capacity were integrated into the calculation of seismic-induced expected losses, however, losses due to building demolition resulting from large residual interstory drifts were not considered. This
investigation also proposed techniques to disaggregate building losses to identify the most significant components that contribute to the overall loss. Additionally, the authors
presented a method for incorporating the effect of correlations into calculating the dispersion associated with these losses at the component-level. Values of component cost
correlations were unavailable and so building-level cost data was used to approximate these correlation coefficients. Component fragilities necessary to illustrate the use of these
techniques were developed and applied to an existing seven-story non-ductile reinforced concrete moment frame building. Damage of components was primarily estimated with minimal consideration of any dependent losses between spatially interacting components. This study treated these component losses independently, assuming that they would not have any affect on the overall losses due to non-collapse. In coordination with the study by Aslani and Miranda (2005), PEERs componentbased loss estimation methodologies were also developed and implemented by MitraniReiser and Beck (2007). This study developed a computer program, named the MATLAB Damage and Loss Analysis (MDLA) toolbox, that implemented the PEER loss estimation framework. This program was then used in an investigation to benchmark the performance of a 4-story ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frame office building, which conformed to modern day seismic codes. Mean losses as a function of ground motion intensity level and expected annual losses were calculated for multiple design variants to examine how different structural and modeling parameters influenced monetary losses. The design variants only consisted of 4-story structures, and consequently, losses for structures of different heights were not examined. Losses due to non-collapse were calculated on a component-by-component basis, however, much like previous studies, the estimations only included losses from components with available fragility functions. The components
considered in this study included beams, columns, slab-column joints, partitions, glazing, sprinklers and elevators. An attempt was made to account for dependent losses of spatially interacting components by including the replacement cost of the dependent component in the repair cost of the other component. However, this approach results in counting the loss of the dependent component twice. Zareian and Krawinkler (2006) developed a simplified version of PEERs performance-based design framework. This study uses a semi-graphical approach to
compute building-specific economic losses. Instead of computing monetary losses per component, the approach computes losses by grouping components into subsystems (either at the story-level or building-level) such that components that belong to the same subsystem are well represented by a single structural response parameter. Although this study
provided a framework that was easier to work with and less complicated, the investigators had to make assumptions about the relationships between structural response and economic
loss to evaluate performance due to the limited damage estimation and loss data available at the time the research was published.
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

Although building-specific loss estimation methods have advanced substantially in recent years, there are many issues that have been left unaddressed. Some of the key limitations that can be identified in previous studies described above are as follows: One the one hand, regional loss estimation methods are typically based on single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems and therefore are not able to adequately capture many significant effects that building-specific approaches can. Effects that are not captured by regional loss estimation methods include higher mode effects of multidegree of freedom (MDOF) systems, nonlinear behavior of structures and repair cost variability. On the other hand, building-specific loss estimation methods can become complicated and computationally intensive. These types of analyses are more tedious and time-consuming than the regional loss estimation methods. A simplified approach that combines the efficiency of regional methods while maintaining the ability to capture an adequate level of detail that building-specific techniques employ has yet to be developed. The economic losses of certain building components are often dependent on the damage state of another component. Losses due to this dependency have been either ignored (Aslani and Miranda, 2005) or accounted for twice (i.e. double counting) in the repair costs of both components (ATC, 2007). Methods to
account for this interaction such that the losses are not underestimated or overestimated are not yet available. Previous studies have made efforts to predict damage probabilistically by developing fragility functions for various building components. Unfortunately,
many components found in a buildings inventory remain without established fragilities because of a lack of available data. Previous studies (Porter and
Kiremidjian 2001, Mitrani-Reiser 2007) have either ignored components for which there are no fragility functions or have treated them as rugged (i.e. components are not damaged unless collapse occurs). Other investigators (Aslani and Miranda,
CHAPTER 2
14
2005) have estimated the loss in some of these components by using generic functions that were initially developed to be used in regional methods (HAZUS) for some of these components. The data used to develop these generic functions, however, are not well-documented and rely heavily on expert opinion that has yet to be validated. Generic functions that estimate damage based on more reliable data are required until data for component-specific fragilities become available, as these components can contribute significantly to the buildings overall loss. Modern structures are designed to be more ductile to protect life-safety by preventing collapse. However, these structures have a higher probability of experiencing residual interstory drifts that are large enough to warrant postearthquake building demolition. While previous investigations have been able to account for losses due to non-collapse (Porter and Kiremidjian, 2001) and losses due to collapse (Aslani and Miranda, 2005), there has been limited work conducted to develop an approach that includes monetary losses from a building that has not collapsed but requires demolishing the building. In particular, the probability that the building will be demolished due to excessive permanent lateral drifts as a function the probability of residual interstory drift exceeding a particular value for a given ground motion intensity level has not been incorporated into the current PEER loss estimation framework. Aslani and Miranda (2005) derived methods to incorporate construction cost correlations into quantifying the uncertainty of seismic-induced loss on a component basis. Yet general contractors structure building construction costs by incorporating estimates of various construction subcontractors. Therefore, much of the cost data available to calculate cost dispersion and correlations is at the building-level or trade/subcontractor-level and not the component-level. An
approach to incorporate cost correlations using the data available has not been previously proposed to quantify its effect on uncertainty propagation. Although previous studies have established the need of using multiple ground motions to characterize the probabilistic nature of the structural response, the number of ground motions to be considered in a loss analysis is much debated. One issue that has not been considered when determining the number of necessary ground motions, is how the number of ground motions considered influences the
CHAPTER 2
15
quality of estimates of response parameter correlations coefficients computed from response simulation. Current building-specific loss estimation methods require a large amount of computation (Aslani and Miranda, 2005), making hand predictions of losses tedious and unpractical. Computer tools are needed to facilitate these computations such that analysts can focus on the analytical data that is input into loss estimation and on the evaluation the results, rather than on the process of predicting monetary losses. Mitrani-Reiser and Beck (2007) created a MATLAB-based computer tool that implements the current methods. However, there are a limited amount of tools that exist for simplified building-specific loss estimation methods. Also, most computer tools have not considered losses conditioned on non-collapse that are caused by to building demolition. Mitrani-Reiser and Beck (2007) collaborated with other PEER researchers (Goulet et al., 2007) to evaluate and benchmark the seismic performance of a conventional 4-story reinforced concrete moment frame building in terms on monetary loss. Losses for a range of design variations for this class of buildings have not been evaluated. Benchmarking losses for an entire class of structures can help identify trends and quantify how well these types of buildings perform when subjected to seismic ground motions.
CHAPTER 2
16
CHAPTER 3
3 STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION

This chapter is based on the following publication: Ramirez, C.M., and Miranda, E. (2009), Story-based Building-Specific Loss Estimation, Journal of Structural Engineering, (in preparation).
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Current seismic codes are aimed primarily at protecting life-safety by providing a set of prescriptive provisions. Recently a few documents have been published which have laid the ground work for performance-based design. In the United States, the two most notable are Vision 2000 (SEAONC, 1995) and ASCE-41 (which was based the pre-standard document FEMA-356 and the previous guidelines FEMA-273). Both documents define discrete global performance goals. For instance, ASCE-41 (ASCE, 2007) describes four structural performance levels as follows: operational, immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention. However measuring performance in this way is difficult because the performance levels are not clearly defined or easy to work with. Recent research suggests structural performance should be quantified in more useful terms on which stakeholders can base their decisions. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center suggests that economic losses, down time and number of fatalities are better seismic performance measures. Thus, there is a great need to develop procedures to estimate economic loss that a structure is likely to experience in future seismic events. PEER has established a fully probabilistic framework that uses the results from seismic hazard analysis and response simulation to estimate damage and monetary losses incurred during earthquakes. The methodology is divided into four basic stages that
CHAPTER 3
17
Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation
account for the following: ground motion hazard of the site, structural response of the building, damage of building components and repair costs. The first stage uses probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to generate a seismic hazard curve, which quantifies the frequency of exceeding a ground motion intensity measure (IM) for the site being considered. The second stage involves using structural response analysis to compute engineering demand parameters (EDPs), such as interstory drift and peak floor accelerations), and the collapse capacity of the structure being considered. The third stage produces damage measures
(DMs) using fragility functions, which are cumulative distribution functions relating EDPs to the probability of being or exceeding particular levels of damage. The fourth and final stage establishes decision variables (DVs), in this case economic losses based on repair and replacement costs of damaged building components, which stakeholders can use to help them make more informed design decisions. The results of each stage serves as input to the next stage as shown in schematically in Figure 3.1. Mathematically, if the metrics from each stage are considered to be random variables, they can be aggregated using the theorem of total probability as demonstrated by Cornell and Krawinkler (2000) using the following equation:
DV
G DV DM dG DM EDP dG EDP IM d
IM
(3.1)
where G[X|Y] denotes the complementary cumulative distribution function of X conditioned on Y, [X|Y] denotes the mean annual occurrence rate of X given Y.
PEER Methodology
Intensity Measure (IM) Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) Damage Measure (DM) Decision Variable (DV)
EDP-DV Functions
Figure 3.1 PEER methodology
CHAPTER 3
18
This framework involves several integrations of many random variables making it very computational intensive. It also requires obtaining a complete inventory of the building being evaluated which can be time consuming. The amount of data to keep track of (i.e. the number of response parameters and their locations, the number of building components, the number of damage statesetc) can become overwhelming. Consequently, the loss
estimation process can be very time consuming, making it prohibitively expensive to conduct on a routine basis. Simplifying the economic loss estimation procedure would allow decision makers to focus on the hazard and structural analysis that serve as input to loss assessments, and the resulting output, structural performance results and design decisions, rather than on the process of estimating losses. A simplified version of PEERs previous building-specific loss estimation methodology is presented in this study. The proposed approach, hereon referred to as storybased loss estimation, is predicated on conducting beforehand the third stage of PEERs framework, damage estimation (see Figure 3.1), thus reducing the amount of data and computation that the design professionals would need to assess seismic structural performance. This can be achieved by creating functions, termed EDP-DV functions, which relate structural response parameters (EDPs) directly to economic losses (DVs). These functions reduce the amount of computation by integrating fragility functions with repair costs beforehand, and reduce the amount of data required to be tracked by making assumptions regarding the buildings inventory based on its occupancy and structural system. These functions are particularly useful when assessing seismic performance during schematic design because many important design decisions, such as the type of lateral force resisting system, are made during this stage, when much of the buildings inventory is uncertain or unknown. Generic story EDP-DV functions are computed here for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame office buildings, as a demonstration of this approach. Additionally, consolidating fragility function and repair costs in this manner provides the opportunity to investigate the issue of conditional losses of spatially interdependent components using EDP-DV functions to analyze how they can be accounted for using this methodology.
CHAPTER 3
19
3.2 STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFC LOSS ESTIMATION

3.2.1 Previous loss estimation methodology (component-based) The third and fourth stages of PEERs methodology, as described in the previous section, involve building-specific damage and loss estimation procedures that have been developed at the component level. It is assumed that the total loss in a building, LT, is equal the sum of repair and replacement costs of the individual components damaged during seismic events. This loss can be computed as:
LT
j 1
Lj
Lj
Lj
Lj
... L j
(3.2)
where Lj is the loss in the jth component and n is the total number of components in the building (note that all the losses in this equations are random variables). Every damageable component considered in the analysis is assigned fragility functions to estimate damage based on the level of structural response. This is what will be herein referred to as component-based loss estimation. Previous studies (Krawinkler & Miranda 2006, Aslani 2005, Mitrani-Reiser, 2007) have already derived the mathematical expressions used in PBEE. Calculating expected losses conditioned on ground motion intensity, E[LT | IM], is the summation between losses due to total collapse multiplied by the probability of collapse and the losses due to noncollapse multiplied by the probability of non-collapse as shown by the following expression,
E LT | IM
E LT | NC , IM P NC | IM
E LT | C P C | IM
(3.3)
where E[LT | NC,IM] is the expected loss in the building provided that collapse has not occurred for ground motions with an intensity level of IM, E[LT | C] is the expected loss in the building when collapse has occurred in the building, P(NC | IM) is the probability that the structure will not collapse conditioned on the occurrence of an earthquake with ground motion intensity, IM, and P(C | IM) is the probability that the structure will collapse
CHAPTER 3
20
conditioned on IM, which is complementary to P(NC | IM), that is, P(NC | IM) = 1 - P(C | IM). Determining the expected losses given collapse involve estimating the probability of collapse from the structural response simulation of the building and estimating the expected value of the loss given that collapse has occurred. The latter typically involves the cost of removal of collapse debris from the site plus replacement value. The simplifications proposed in this study will concentrate on the simplification of calculating expected losses due to non-collapse. conditioned on non-collapse is given as follows: The expression for expected losses
E LT | NC , IM
E
j 1
L j | NC , IM
j 1
E L j | NC , IM
(3.4)
where E[Lj |NC , IM] is the expected loss in the jth component given that global collapse has not occurred at the intensity level IM, and Lj is the loss in the jth component defined as the cost of repair or replacement. Using the total probability theorem, the expected loss given no collapse has occurred can be calculated as follows:
E L j | NC , IM
0
E L j | NC , EDPj dP EDPj
edp j | NC , IM
(3.5)
where E[Lj | NC, EDPj] is the expected loss in the jth component when it is subjected to an engineering demand parameter, EDPj, P(EDPj > EDPj | NC, IM ), is the probability of exceeding EDPj, in component j given that collapse has not occurred in the building and the level of ground motion intensity IM is im. Further detail on the estimation of the conditional probability P(EDPj > EDPj | NC, IM ) and probabilistic seismic response analysis, can be found in Aslani and Miranda (2005).
CHAPTER 3
21
The expected loss in component j conditioned on EDP, E[Lj | NC, EDPj] is a function of the components repair cost when it is in different damage states and the probability of being in each damage state as illustrated in the following expression:
E[ L j | NC , EDPj ]
i 1
E L j | NC , DSi P DS
dsi | NC , EDPj
(3.6)
where m is the number of damage states in the jth component, E[Lj | NC, DSi] is the expected value of the normalized loss in component j when it is in damage state i , DSi, and P(DS = dsi | NC, EDPj) is the probability of the jth component being in damage state i, dsi , given that it is subjected to a demand of EDPj. The probability of being in each damage state for component j can be obtained from component-specific fragility functions. The reader is referred to Aslani and Miranda (2005) for further details on the development of component-specific fragility functions. 3.2.2 EDP-DV function formulation The first step in developing story EDP-DV functions is collapsing out the third intermediate step of damage estimation by combining information from loss functions and fragility function as shown in equation (3.6). This requires consolidating all the fragility and expected repair costs for each component. However, if the repair costs are normalized by the components replacement value, aj, this computation can be conducted without having to provide these values for every damage state, which will save a substantial amount of number keeping. Mathematically, aj can be factored out of equation (3.6), and canceled on both sides equations such that:
a j E [ L j | NC , EDPj ]
aj
i 1
E L j | NC , DSi P DS
dsi | NC , EDPj
(3.7)
where E[Lj | NC, DSi] and E[Lj | NC, EDPi] are now normalized by the components replacement value, aj.
CHAPTER 3
22
The second step involves summing the individual component losses for the entire story of a building. Previously, this summation requires inventorying the number of
components and the value of each component type. However, generic EDP-DV functions can be formulated if components of the same type are grouped together and assumed to experience the same level of damage (i.e. all partitions in the same story experience the same level of damage). The loss for each component type can be calculated by multiplying the results of equation (3.7) by its value relative to entire value of the story, bj (that is, bj is equal to the total value of components of the same type, j divided by the total value of the story). Component types can then by summed for the entire story using:
E [ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ]
j
b j E [ L j | NC, EDPj ]
(3.8)
where E [ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ] is the expected loss of the entire story normalized by the replacement value of the story, conditioned on the kth EDP. This is how the generic EDPDV functions will be expressed. With the loss expressed in these terms, the analysts no longer needs to specify j replacement values for each component, but rather only needs to stipulate the total value of the story to determine the loss of the component. The monetary value of the expected loss for the entire story can then be found with the following equation:
E[ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ] cl E [ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ]
(3.9)
where E[ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ] is the economic loss of the story expressed in dollars and cl is the replacement value of the story in dollars. Note that because the results of equations (3.8) and (3.9) are conditioned on EDP, separate functions need to be generated for each type of EDP sensitivity. EDP sensitivity is defined by what type of EDP is used to determine building component damage. Although there are many types of EDPs, the loss estimation process can be further simplified if the choice of different EDPs is limited to a small number. The EDPs chosen in
CHAPTER 3
23
this study are interstory drift ratio (IDR) and peak floor accelerations (PFA). Accordingly, components can be categorized as either drift-sensitive or acceleration sensitive, depending which type of parameter induces damage for each component. It is also useful for engineers to differentiate between structural and nonstructural components. Assuming that structural damage is primarily caused by IDR, it was determined that only the following seismic sensitivities would be considered in this implementation: drift-sensitive structural components, drift-sensitive nonstructural components, and acceleration sensitive
nonstructural components. An important consideration when formulating EDP-DV functions is whether or not the economic losses of components on the same story are dependent on one another due to spatial and physical interactions between the components. This issue is described and explored in greater detail in section 3.5 of this chapter. For the EDP-DV functions
presented in this study, it was found that these types of losses did not have a large influence on the total economic losses for each story. However, this may not necessarily always be the case for other types of structural systems and occupancies and a method of accounting for these types of losses into EDP-DV functions is presented.
3.3 DATA FOR EDP-DV FUNCTIONS

3.3.1 Building Components & Cost Distributions Generic story EDP-DV functions normalized by the story replacement value requires knowing typical cost distributions for a given building occupancy and structural system. The source chosen to establish the cost distribution for this investigation is the 2007 RS Means Square Foot Costs (Balboni, 2007). The publication gives cost
distributions of the entire building rather than the distributions at the story level. Engineering judgment was used translate this data into story cost distributions, while maintaining the overall building cost distribution. Translating the building cost distribution to story distributions requires making assumptions as to how the value varies along its height. This will be highly dependent on how the building components are distributed amongst the different floors, which is typically a function of the occupancy of the building. The sample functions generated by this study are for typical commercial office buildings. Although different story cost distributions
CHAPTER 3
24
could be generated for ever floor, the number of distributions used can be limited by making the following assumptions: The entire building will be used for office space (i.e. not a mixed-use facility) The value of the first floor has significant differences from the other floors because as the main entrance, the layout, facades and finishes are typically different at this level. The value of the top floor, typically the roof of the building, has significant differences from the other floors because typically this is where most of the buildings MEP equipment is located (this floor includes any equipment that may be located in a mechanical penthouse). The remaining intermediate floors are all dedicated to office use. These floors will have the same story cost distribution. Under these assumptions, it was decided that there would be three different types of story cost distributions: one for the 1st floor, one for the top floor, and one for the intermediate floors, which will be referred to as the typical floor. The 2007 RS Means Square Foot Costs (Balboni, 2007) documents estimated cost building distributions for many different types of common building occupancies (ex. residential high-rise, commercial low-rise, hospitalsetc.). Table 3.1 displays an example cost distribution for a 7-story commercial office building. The first column is the cost distribution for the entire building taken directly from RS Means (Balboni, 2007). Based on this information, the cost distributions for the 1st floor, the typical floors and the top floor were approximated as shown in the second, third and fourth columns, respectively, in Table 3.1. Most of the story distributions are similar to the overall building distributions with the exception of a couple of items that reflect the assumptions discussed in the previous paragraph. For instance, the component group Exterior Enclosures has a higher contribution to the story cost in the 1st floor because it is common to have more expensive exterior elements around the buildings main entrances. Conversely, component groups such as HVAC and Conveying have high cost contributions at the top floor because most of the equipment associated with these groups is typically located on the buildings roof.
CHAPTER 3
25
Table 3.1 Example building and story cost distributions for mid-rise office buildings
Building Distribution (% of total bldg value) Total A. SUBSTRUCTURE 2.3% B. SHELL B10 Superstructure B20 Exterior Enclosure B30 Roofing C. INTERIORS 19.4% D. SERVICES D10 Conveying D20 Plumbing D30 HVAC D40 Fire Protection D50 Electrical 9.5% 1.9% 13.0% 2.6% 16.8% 100% 20.7% 9.1% 1.9% 12.3% 2.6% 16.6% 100% 21.4% 9.4% 1.9% 12.7% 2.7% 17.2% 100% 11.1% 11.8% 2.0% 17.6% 2.8% 17.9% 100% 17.6% 16.3% 0.6% 0.0% 17.9% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 18.5% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 16.9% 4.5%
1
Component Group
Story Distribution (% of story value) 1st Floor Typical Floor Top Floor
Notes: 1) Cost distribution of total bldg value take from RS Means Square Foot Costs (2007)
Table 3.2 goes into greater detail of the story cost distribution for a typical story in a 7-story office building by further dividing the cost of each component group into individual components. The distribution of cost for each component group was primarily based on engineering judgment. Also included in the table is information about each components seismic sensitivity and assigned fragility group. Several of the components were assumed to only be damaged if the entire structure collapsed. These components, termed rugged, were assumed to not contribute to the loss due to non-collapse. The fragilities assigned to the components that are deemed damageable are explained in greater detail in Section 3.3.2. All the cost distributions for low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise
buildings used in this study can be found in Appendix A.
CHAPTER 3
26
Table 3.2 Example component cost distribution for a typical story in a mid-rise office building
Building Height: Floor Type: Component B. SHELL B10 Superstructure Slab Beam-column Assembly Slab-column Assembly B20 Exterior Enclosure Exterior Walls Exterior Windows Exterior Doors B30 Roofing Roof Coverings Roof Openings C. INTERIORS Partitions with finishes Interior Doors Fittings Stair Construction Floor Finishes - 60% carpet 30% vinyl composite tile 10% ceramic tile Ceiling Finishes D. SERVICES D10 Conveying Elevators & Lifts D20 Plumbing Plumbing Fixtures D30 HVAC Terminal & Package Units Other HVAC Sys. & Equipment D40 Fire Protection Sprinklers Standpipes D50 Electrical Electrical Service/Distribution Lighting & Branch Wiring Lighting & Branch Wiring Lighting & Branch Wiring Communications & Security Communications & Security Communications & Security Mid-rise Typical Floor Seismic Sensitivity Fragility Group Normalized costs
Rugged IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR Rugged Rugged
Structural Structural Partitions Windows Partitions
8.2% 7.2% 3.1% 9.1% 6.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
18.5%
16.2%
0.0%
IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR Rugged Rugged PFA
Partitions Partitions Generic-Drift Generic-Drift DS3 Partition-like
Ceilings
4.5% 1.9% 0.6% 1.9% 4.4% 2.2% 0.7% 5.1%
21.4%
IDR PFA IDR Rugged PFA IDR
Generic-Drift Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like
0.9% 8.5% 0.9% 1.1% 9.5% 3.2% 2.0% 0.7% 1.5% 1.1% 5.1% 4.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.5% 100%
9.4%
1.9%
Generic-Accl Generic-Drift
12.7%
PFA IDR PFA Rugged PFA IDR Rugged PFA IDR
Generic-Accl Generic-Drift Generic-Accl Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like =
2.7%
17.2%
100%
CHAPTER 3
27
3.3.2
Fragility Functions Used Creating EDP-DV functions requires consolidating fragility and mean repair costs
for all the components being considered. Table 3.3, Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 display the parameters for the fragility and normalized mean repair costs used in this study for ductile concrete structural components, non-ductile concrete structural components and nonstructural components, respectively. The first column identifies the type of component and the second column lists the different damage states associated with each component. The third and fourth columns list the medians and lognormal standard deviations of the fragility functions used, respectively. The fifth column lists the expected value of the corresponding cost of repair/replacement actions. The sixth and final column cites the reference that developed the functions.
Table 3.3 Fragility function & expected repair cost (normalized by component replacement cost) parameters for ductile structural components
Component DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS1 DS2 DS3 Damage State
Method of Repair 1 Method of Repair 2 Method of Repair 3 Method of Repair 4 Light Cracking Severe Cracking Punching Shear Failure
Beam-column Subassembly Slab-column Subassembly
Fragility Function Parameters Repair Cost Reference Median (% for Expected Dispersion IDR, g for PFA) Value 0.70 0.45 0.14 Brown & Lowes 1.70 0.50 0.47 (2006) 3.90 0.30 0.71 6.00 0.22 2.25 Aslani & Miranda 0.40 0.39 0.10 (2005), & Roberson 1.00 0.25 0.40 et al. (2002) 9.00 0.24 2.75
Table 3.4 Fragility function & expected repair cost (normalized by component replacement cost) parameters for non-ductile structural components
Fragility Function Parameters Repair Cost Component DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 Damage State
Light Cracking Severe Cracking Shear Failure Loss of Vertical Carrying Capacity Method of Repair 1 Method of Repair 2 Method of Repair 3 Method of Repair 4 Method of Repair 5 Light Cracking Severe Cracking Punching Shear Failure Loss of Vertical Carrying Capacity
Median (% for IDR, g for PFA) 0.35 1.00 2.60 6.80 0.65 1.20 2.20 3.00 3.60 0.40 1.00 4.40 5.40
Dispersion 0.33 0.44 0.55 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.39 0.25 0.24 0.16
Expected Value 0.10 0.50 2.00 3.00 0.14 0.47 0.71 1.41 2.31 0.10 0.40 1.00 2.75
Reference
Columns
Aslani & Miranda (2005)
Beam-column Subassembly
Pagni & Lowes (2006)
Slab-column Subassembly
Aslani & Miranda (2005), & Roberson et al. (2002)
CHAPTER 3
28
Table 3.5 Fragility function & expected repair cost (normalized by component replacement cost) parameters for nonstructural components
Component Damage State
Visible damage and small cracks in
Seismic Sensitivity
Fragility Function Parameters Median (% for Dispersion IDR, g for PFA) 0.21 0.61
Repair Cost Expected Value 0.10
Reference
DS1 gypsum board that can be repaired with

taping, pasting and painting Extensive crack in gypsum board that can be repaired with replacing the DS2 gypsum board, taping, pasting and painting Damage to panel and also frame that can be repaired with replacing gypsum DS3 board and frame, taping, pasting and painting
Partitions (including faade)
IDR
0.69
0.40
0.60
ATC (2007)
1.27 IDR 1.27 1.60
0.45 0.45 0.29
1.20 1.20 0.10 Aslani (2005)
DS3 Partition-like
DS1
Some minor damages around the frame
DS1 that can be repaired with realignment of

the window Occurrence of cracking at glass panel without any fall-out of the glass that can
Windows
DS2 be repaired with replacing of the glass

panel
IDR
3.20
0.29
0.60
Aslani & Miranda (2005)
Part of glass panel falls out of the frame.
DS3 The damage state can be repaired with

replacing of glass panel
3.60 0.55 1.00 2.20 3.50
0.27 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.35
1.20 0.03 0.10 0.60 1.20
Generic-Drift
DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4
Slight Damage Moderage Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Hanging wires are splayed and few panels fall down. The damage state can and replacing the fallen panel.
IDR
Ramirez & Miranda (2009)
DS1 be repaired with fixing the hanging wires

Damage to some of main runners and cross tee bars in addition to hanging wires. The damage state can be DS2 repaired with replacing the damaged parts of grid, fallen panels and damaged hanging wires. Ceiling grid tilts downward (near collapse). The damage state can be panels.
0.30
0.40
0.12
Ceilings
PFA
0.65
0.50
0.36
ATC (2007)
DS3 repaired with replacing the ceiling and DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4
Slight Damage Moderage Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
1.28 0.70 1.00 2.20 3.50
0.55 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.35
1.20 0.02 0.12 0.36 1.20
Generic-Acceleration
PFA
Ramirez & Miranda (2009)
Most of the fragility functions were used directly from the reference cited in Table 3.5, without any additional modifications. However, several of the structural fragilities required making assumptions to establish the functions parameters. The following section will detail the assumptions and modifications to the made for this study. 3.3.2.1 Fragility functions for ductile reinforced concrete structural components Fragility functions for beam-column subassemblies were based on Brown and Lowes (2006), with slight modifications made to the parameters by the authors of this study. The lognormal standard deviation of damage state 1 (DS1) was decreased from 0.89 to 0.45 because the original dispersion value published is substantially higher than other values of dispersion for structural component fragility functions computed from experimental data. A high value of dispersion in the first damage state of a component can
CHAPTER 3
29
be problematic because it can estimate that the probability of damage occurring initiates at very early levels of IDR. To demonstrate this, damage initiation in a building component will be quantitatively defined as the value IDR that results in a 1% probability of the first damage state occurring or being exceeded. Using this criterion, the original parameters of the function for DS1 published by Brown and Lowes (2006) computes that damage initiates at an IDR of 0.00085. This estimates that damage will first become probable when relative floor displacements are equal to about and 1/8th of an inch (assuming a 13-foot story height). At this level of relative lateral deformation, structural components will more than likely still behave elastically and not require any repairs to be made. There exists a range of initial EDP values, from zero to a threshold value (which can be referred to as a quiet zone), where damage will not occur because the response parameters below this threshold are not large enough to yield the building components. If this elastic region is not considered when estimating damage using continuous probability distributions, economic losses (particularly expected annual losses, which are very sensitive to losses due to non-collapse at small levels of ground motion intensity, Miranda and Aslani, 2005) may be overestimated. This is because large probabilities will be computed at small response parameter values for lognormal distribution functions with large values of dispersion as shown in this example. Thus the standard deviation for the first damage state of this component was decreased. The functions for the other damage states generated by Brown and Lowes (2006) for this component and other functions computed form previous studies on structural component fragility functions (Robertson et al. 2002, Aslani and Miranda 2005, Pagni and Lowes 2006) have lognormal standard deviations that typically range from approximately 0.20 to 0.50. Therefore, this fragility was assigned a lognormal standard deviation of 0.45, which is on the higher end of this range. Adjustments made to the other damage states include rounding off the parameters of damage states 2 and 3. The parameters of damage state 4 were adjusted such that it would not cross the fragility for damage state 3 (this required more substantial adjustments than the other modifications, however, this fragility is based on a smaller set of data, and may not be as reliable as the other functions). At the time of this publication, there were no fragilities available for ductile slabcolumn subassemblies. To account for damage of these components, fragilities for nonductile slab-column subassemblies (Aslani and Miranda, 2005) were modified to represent
CHAPTER 3 30 Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation
how these components would perform if they were ductile. The parameters of damage state 3, accounting for punching shear failure of the slab, needed be increased because more recent codes have introduced shear reinforcing requirements into their provisions (ACI, 2002). An investigation conducted by Roberson et al. (2002) developed a relationship between gravity load carried by the slab and the interstory drift at which punching shear occurs for slab-column subassemblies with shear reinforcement. The median IDR for this damage state was taken from this relationship by assuming a shear demand-capacity ratio of 0.15. The fourth damage state is defined as the loss of vertical carrying capacity which is not considered for ductile joints because modern building codes require slab reinforcing bars run continuous through the column joint, preventing this failure mode from occurring.
3.3.2.2 Fragility functions for non-ductile reinforced concrete structural components Parameters for non-ductile concrete column fragility functions were taken directly from Aslani and Miranda (2005). The value of IDR that column shear failure occurs, the third damage state for this component, is dependent on the amount for axial (gravity) load it is carrying. Consequently, the parameters of the fragility function for the third damage state are also a function of the level of axial load creating a fragility surface. To determine the parameters for this fragility, a relatively low level of axial load was assumed ( P Ag f c
50 , where P is the axial load, Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the
column, fc is the compressive strength of the concrete and is the reinforcement ratio), for low to mid-rise buildings and intermediate level of axial load ( P Ag fc rise buildings. Pagni and Lowes (2006) developed fragility functions for modern reinforced concrete beam-column subassemblies. These functions were used in this study with minor modifications made to some of their parameters. The dispersion of damage state 1 was decreased from 0.47 to 0.35 to increase the range of IDR where these components behave elastically and no damage occurs (i.e. increase the quiet zone as described in section 3.3.2.1. The other parameters for this function were adjusted to achieve a better fit with the empirical data reported in the Pagni and Lowes (2006) paper. Functions for non-ductile concrete slab-column subassemblies were taken directly from the study conducted by Aslani and Miranda (2005). The level of deformation at which
150 ) for high-
CHAPTER 3
31
punching shear failure occurs in slab-column subassemblies is a function of the level of gravity load the slab is carrying, typically represented by the shear demand-capacity ratio that occurs at a distance d/2 from the column face (where d is the average effective depth of the slab). The median and dispersion of the fragility function for the third damage state of these components varies as a function of the level of gravity load resulting in a fragility surface. For the purposes of this study, a low level of gravity load was assumed, where a shear demand-capacity ratio of 0.15 was used based on the fact that buildings occupancy is defined as office use and large gravity loads are not expected for this type of use.
3.3.2.3 Fragility functions for drift-sensitive nonstructural components Fragility functions derived by Aslani and Miranda (2005) for partitions and windows and partition-like components were used in this study. Aslani and Miranda (2005)
introduced the concept of partition-like components other components whose loss is dependent on the damage state of the partition. Many of these components, such as
electrical wiring, plumbingetc., are often contained within the partitions. If a partition is damaged to an extent that it needs to be replaced, these other components have to be replaced as well, regardless if they have been damaged independently. Consequently, these components were assigned the same fragility as the function for the partition replacement, the partitions third damage state, and were termed DS3 partition-like components. This physical and spatial interaction between partitions and the components contained within the partitions results in their losses being dependent. There are other building components that exhibit this type of loss dependency and this phenomenon is discussed and investigated in further detail in section 3.5. No modifications were made to the parameters of functions for partitions, DS3 partition-like components, and window and were used as documented by Aslani and Miranda (2005). For all other components, generic fragility functions derived from empirical data, as described in Chapter 5 of this dissertation, were used to estimate damage and loss.
3.3.2.4 Fragility functions for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components Ceiling fragility functions taken from preliminary data and documents from the ATC58 project (ATC, 2007) were used in this study with only one modification made to its first
CHAPTER 3
32
damage state. Recent studies (Badillo-Almaraz et al., 2007) have shown that damage may initiate at larger accelerations than previously thought. The median of the first damage state was rounded up from 0.27 and 0.30 to take this into account. All other accelerationsensitive components were assigned generic fragility functions formulated from empirical data as described in Chapter 5 of this dissertation.
3.4 EXAMPLE STORY EDP-DV FUNCTIONS

Example EDP-DV functions were created for several variations of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame office buildings. Functions for low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise structures were calculated. Other structural variations were also considered, such as frame type (perimeter or space frames) and the ductility of the concrete (ductile or nonductile), when generating EDP-DV functions for structural components. For all variations, functions for the different floor types (1st floor, typical floor and top floor) were formulated. The entire set of functions computed in this study are reported in Appendix B of this document. Figure 3.2 shows the EDP-DV story functions generated for mid-rise, ductile perimeter frame buildings. Functions for drift-sensitive structural components, drift-
sensitive nonstructural components, and acceleration sensitive nonstructural components are plotted in Figures (a), (b) and (c) respectively. On each graph, the functions for the 1st floor, the typical floor and the top floor are plotted.
CHAPTER 3
33
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Structural components
1st Floor Typ Floor Top Floor
(a)
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00
0.05 IDR
0.10
0.15
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Nonstructural components
E(L | PFA) 1.00
(b)
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20
(c)
0.05 IDR
0.10
0.15
0.00 0.00
2.00
4.00 PFA [g]
6.00
8.00
Figure 3.2 Story EDP-DV functions for typical floors in mid-rise office buildings with ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting perimeter frames.
Comparing plots in Figure 3.2(a) between the different floor types shows that losses for drift-sensitive structural components are slightly higher for the 1st and typical floors than the top floor. A similar trend is observed in Figure 3.2(b) for drift sensitive nonstructural components. Conversely, acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components show the
opposite trend (Figure 3.2(c)), where the larger losses are observed in the top floor. These trends can be explained by how the cost is distributed along the height of the building. Drift-sensitive items, such as partitions and structural members, make more of the relative story value in the lower stories, especially in the 1st floor where more expensive components (ex. finishes) may be located. On the other hand, acceleration-sensitive
components may make up more of the story value at the top floor because mechanical items (such as HVAC units) are typically located on the roof of these types of buildings.
CHAPTER 3
34
The nonstructural, drift-sensitive functions indicate that these types of components have the largest potential to contribute to the loss, especially for structural systems that are designed to experience large IDRs, such as moment-frames. The functions saturate
between 0.46-0.53 of the total value of the story. Further, these functions estimate higher economic losses at smaller IDR values than the losses estimated by the functions for structural components. Beginning at an approximate interstory drift of 0.05, these
functions take a steep increase to a loss of about 0.32 of the story value as the IDR approaches 0.02. By comparison, the structural components experience loss of 0.05 of the total story value at an IDR of 0.025 (an IDR of 0.025 is a noteworthy value because modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings are designed to not to exceed this level of IDR using equivalent static analyses when subjected to a ground motion intensity equal to the design-basis earthquake as prescribed by US building codes, ICC 2006), which is about 600% smaller than the drift-sensitive nonstructural components. Previous studies (Aslani and Miranda 2005, Taghavi and Miranda, 2006) have also suggested that nonstructural components will make up the majority of seismic-induced losses as observed here. It follows that if the value of the story is primarily comprised of nonstructural components, the majority of associated losses will be made up of these elements. The difference in EDP-DV functions for typical floors between low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings are shown in Figure 3.3 for each of the three different components group categories. These figures show that the losses for structural components are lower for stories in low-rise buildings than the losses in stories of high-rise buildings. The opposite trend is true for nonstructural components, where the low-rise buildings exhibit the largest normalized story losses. When Figure 3.3(b) is compared to Figure 3.3(c), it can be observed that the differences in economic losses between the low-rise and high-rise buildings are larger for drift-sensitive components than they are for acceleration-sensitive components. These trends can also be attributed to the differences in cost distributions for these types of elements between structures of different heights. For instance, the value of structural components relative to the entire value building increases for taller buildings as can be observed from the cost distributions in Appendix A (taken from Balboni, 2007).
CHAPTER 3
35
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Low-rise Mid-rise High-rise
(a)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0.00
0.05
IDR E(L | PFA) 1.00
0.10
0.15
E(L | IDR) 1.00
(b)
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20
(c)
0.05
IDR
0.10
0.15
0.00 0.00
2.00
4.00 PFA [g]
6.00
8.00
Figure 3.3 EDP-DV Functions for low-rise, mid-rise and high rise ductile reinforced concrete moment frame office buildings
EDP-DV functions can be used to evaluate how varying different structural parameters can influence loss at the story-level. Over the past 40 years, US seismic building codes have introduced a variety of provisions to increase the ductility of structural reinforced concrete. Based on observed performance during seismic events, more stringent confinement requirements and other detailing provisions that delay or prevent certain sudden, failure modes from occurring (ex. shear failure modes), were instituted to decrease the probability of lives lost during an earthquake. How this improved performance
translates when using losses as a metric can be assessed using the EDP-DV functions formulated in this study. Figure 3.4 compares structural story functions between ductile and non-ductile concrete elements. Both functions initiate loss at approximately the same IDR, but begin to deviate from each other at an IDR of about 0.015. The non-ductile
CHAPTER 3
36
function indicates, as expected, that loss accumulates at faster rate than the ductile function for increasing values of IDR. The largest deviation between the two curves occurs at the IDR value of 0.052, where there is a maximum difference of about 0.13 of loss (relative to the total story value). This represents a relative change of approximately 140% in
performance between non-ductile frames and ductile frames. The non-ductile function saturates at an earlier drift of 0.075 whereas the ductile function levels off later at around 0.013.
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Ductile Non-ductile
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00
0.05 IDR
0.10
0.15
Figure 3.4 Comparison between ductile and non-ductile structural component EDP-DV functions of typical floors
Different EDP-DV functions for perimeter frames and for space frames were formulated to account for the different type of construction implemented for these systems. The functions for perimeter frame buildings accounted for beam-column subassemblies and slab-column subassemblies, whereas the functions for space frame buildings only considered beam-column subassemblies. It was assumed that the value of the slab-columns represented in the perimeter frame buildings would be replaced by an equivalent value of beam-column components in the space frame buildings to keep the total percentage of story value due to structural components consistent with the cost distributions taken from the RS Means data (this is primarily because the data from RS Means did not make a distinction between perimeter and space frame buildings). The value of beam-column subassemblies was increased by the value of slab-column connections that was removed. Figure 3.5 plots
CHAPTER 3 37 Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation
the comparison between different frame types for typical floors of mid-rise buildings. The graph shows that there is very little difference in story loss between the two types of frames. The maximum difference in loss approximately 0.035 of the total story value occurs between the IDR range of 0.06 to 0.08. The relatively small difference in the functions may suggest that it may not be important to differentiate between frame type when evaluating non-collapse losses. Being able to make this assumption can further simplify the process in assessing loss by not having to define and use separate EDP-DV functions for perimeter and space frames separately.
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Perimeter Space
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00
0.05 IDR
0.10
0.15
Figure 3.5 Comparison of structural EDP-DV functions between perimeter and space frame type structures
As documented in section 3.3.2, several components have fragility functions whose parameters are dependent on other variables. For instance, the probability of experiencing or exceeding the damage state for shear punching failure of slab-column connections is dependent on the amount of gravity load the slab is carrying (Aslani and Miranda, 2005). Assumptions on the level of demand-capacity shear load ratio needed to be made to set the median and dispersion to be used in calculating the EDP-DV function. This assumption was evaluated by generating functions for both low and high levels of gravity loads to see how sensitive this parameter affects the corresponding losses, and the results are shown in Figure 3.6.
CHAPTER 3
38
The primary differences between these two EDP-DV functions are the parameters used for the fragility function of the third damage state of the slab-column connections (punching shear failure). For the fragility assuming a low level of gravity load (shear demand-capacity ratio = 0.15), the median IDR was computed to be 0.09 (based on Robertson et al, 2002) with a lognormal standard deviation of 0.24 (based on Aslani and Miranda, 2005). For the fragility assuming a high-level of gravity load (shear demandcapacity ratio = 0.50), the median was IDR was computed to be 0.056 (based on Robertson et al, 2002) with a lognormal standard deviation of 0.54 (based on Aslani and Miranda, 2005). There appears to be some difference between the two functions, however, it does not seem to be very substantial. Largest difference in losses occurs within the IDR range of 0.05 and 0.10, where the maximum difference in loss (0.05 of the story value) occurs at around and IDR of 0.075. This represents a relative difference of 28% if the gravity load is underestimated using the lower level assumption. This suggests that the assumed gravity load on these components for perimeter frames may not have as strong an influence on seismic-induced losses as other structural properties (i.e. ductility of concrete). Analysts conducting loss assessments can take advantage of the fact that this assumption will not affect their estimates significantly, by not having to deal with multiple functions that account for different levels of gravity load.
E(L | IDR) 1.00
Low gravity load High gravity load
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00
0.05 IDR
0.10
0.15
Figure 3.6 Influence of varying assumed gravity load on slab-column subassemblies on structural EDP-DV functions
CHAPTER 3
39
3.5 CONDITIONAL LOSS OF SPATIALLY INTERDEPENDENT COMPONENTS

Consolidating the loss components into story EDP-DV functions in this manner provides the opportunity to investigate the issue of the interaction between the losses of components that are spatially interdependent. These types of losses occurs when damage from one component results in repair or replacement of another component because of their physical relationship between the two elements. For instance, when sprinklers are
damaged, water may leak onto the components below, such as suspended lighting fixtures. The fragility functions of lighting fixtures typically do not capture damage due to leaking water, but still needs to be considered if losses are to be computed accurately. The spatial interaction of components will influence economic loss estimates when the fragility functions of the elements begin to significantly overlap. To illustrate this, Figure 3.7 shows two example sets of hypothetical fragility functions for sprinklers and suspending lighting fixtures, which may interact during a seismic event. Each figure, (a) and (b), plots functions for two damage states, one in which repair is required (DM1) and the other in which replacement is required (DM2), for both the suspended lighting (solid lines) and the sprinklers (dashed lines). In this example, when the sprinklers first damage state occurs, water leakage is assumed to occur as well damaging the lighting fixtures below and initiating replacement of the lighting fixtures. If the components have fragilities as those shown in Figure 3.7 (a), then this spatially interaction does not have that large of influence on the economic losses. For instance, for a given PFA = 1.0g, the probability of the light fixtures requiring replacement is 9%, whereas the probability of the sprinklers leaking and needing repair is approximately 0%. This means that it is more likely that if the lighting fixtures need replacement due to the accelerations induced by the applied ground motion, rather than due to water leakage of damaged sprinklers. In this case the losses are calculated correctly because for the given level of PFA there is almost no probability that losses of lighting fixture replacement due to water damage will be incurred. Conversely, if the components have fragilities that have greater overlap as shown in Figure 3.7 (b), damage and loss estimation may be underestimated. In this case, at a PFA = 1.0 the probability of the sprinklers leaking and forcing replacement of the lighting fixtures (24%) is higher than the probability of lighting fixture being replaced due to floor
CHAPTER 3
40
accelerations directly (9%). There is a significant probability that the lighting fixture will have to be replaced due to water damage, however, the only monetary losses that are associated with this damage state (Sprinklers -DM1) are the repair costs of the sprinklers. When economic losses are computed for the lighting fixtures, the methodology discussed thus far will only account for losses due to damage caused by PFA directly and not water damage. This approach ignores the interaction between the components (i.e. the
components losses are treated independent of one another). There is nothing in the current framework that accounts for the conditional loss of replacing the lighting due to water damage. Previous studies (Beck et al., 2002), have attempted to account for these types of conditional economic losses due to spatial interaction by including the replacement cost of the dependent component into the other components repair cost. In the previous example for a given PFA = 1.0g , this approach includes the cost of replacing the suspended lighting fixtures into the repair cost associated with the first damage state of the sprinklers (DM1 Repair). Unfortunately, monetary losses from the replacement of the lighting fixtures due to PFA directly are still computed because this event has a probability (9%) of occurring for the given level of EDP. Consequently, the economic loss from the cost of replacing the lighting fixtures is counted twice, or double counted.
CHAPTER 3
41
P(DM > dm | PFA = pfa)

1.00
Lighting - DM1: Repair
0.80
Lighting - DM2: Replacement Sprinklers - DM1: Repair/Leakage Sprinklers - DM2: Replacement
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
(a)
5.0
PFA P(DM > dm | PFA = pfa)

1.00
Lighting - DM1: Repair
0.80
Lighting - DM2: Replacement Sprinklers - DM1: Repair/Leakage Sprinklers - DM2: Replacement
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
(b)
5.0
PFA
Figure 3.7 Hypothetical fragility functions of spatially interacting components (sprinklers & suspended lighting) (a) example where losses are unaffected (b) example when losses are conditional
Therefore, there are two possible errors in estimating loss that may arise if this dependency is not accounted for properly: (1) underestimating the loss by ignoring this dependency; or (2) overestimating the loss by counting the repair cost of a component twice (double-counting). A proposed method that addresses these errors and accounts for these losses correctly is presented here using a more detailed example of the dependent relationship between steel beams and partitions. The failures of pre-Northridge steelcolumn joints fracturing have been well-documented (FEMA-355E, 2000). Although these types of structures avoided catastrophic collapse during this event, many stakeholders ended up paying large sums of money to repair the steel structural members, which fractured at smaller interstory drifts than expected. It has been demonstrated that steel beams,
particularly ones with large depths, are susceptible to fracture at very small amounts of
CHAPTER 3
42
rotation. Consequently, there were many occurrences of fractured steel members behind partitions that experienced little to no damage. To repair the damaged joint, contractors must remove the partitions to access the structural members. The cost of replacing the partition must be accounted for in loss estimates, despite the fact that very little damage to the partition may have occurred. Aslani and Miranda (2005) treated the components separately by defining their loss functions that excluded any loss from related components. Figure 3.8 shows the probability trees for a pre-Northridge steel beam and a partition when the components are treated separately. Each branch of the trees represents possible damage states for each component. The probability for each outcome is computed by the fragility function associated with each damage state. Also shown in the figure is the expected loss due to repair actions for each damage state, E[Lk | DM=k]. A numerical example, for the expected loss when the
interstory drift is equal to 0.01, E[Li | IDR], is given in the figure. For each component, i the probability of being in damage state, k, is calculated, P(DM = k | IDR), and using the theorem of total probability, the expected loss is calculated using equation (3.7). The resulting losses in the beams and partitions are 0.01 and 0.024 (normalized by the total value of the story), respectively, for a total of 0.034 for both components. In this approach the two components are not dependent as illustrated by the fact that the branches do not intersect. The losses are calculated entirely independently, and does not account for any loss due to the partition being removed to access the steel beam for inspection and repair.
CHAPTER 3
43
STEEL BEAMS abms = 2.0%
DM = 0, No Damage E[L | DM = 0] = 0.0 P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 74%
E[Lbms | IDR] = 0.01
TOTAL E[L TOTAL | IDR] = 0.034
DM =1, Fracture P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 26% E[L | DM = 1] = 2.0
PARTITIONS aparts = 3.3%
DM = 0, No Damage E[L | DM = 0] = 0.0 P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 5% DM = 1, Small cracking E[L | DM = 1] = 0.1
E[Lparts | IDR] =0.024
P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 13% DM = 2, Extensive cracking E[L | DM = 2] = 0.6 P(DM = 2 | IDR) = 47% DM = 3, Replacement reqd E[L | DM = 3] = 1.2 P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 35%
Figure 3.8 Probability tree for components considered to act independently
Another approach to account for this loss, is to include the cost of replacing the partitions, as part of the repair cost of the steel beams. An example of this approach is documented by Beck et al. (2002), where they list the replacement cost of partitions and other nonstructural components as part of total estimate of the repair cost function. This creates the second issue mentioned above of double-counting, where the partitions are being assessed a loss twice. It is being counted in the repair cost function of the beam, as well as a separate component that experiences damage. This approach is illustrated through
probability trees shown in Figure 3.9. This figure is the same as Figure 3.8, with the exception that the expected loss of repairing the steel beams is increased from 2.0 to 5.0 (these losses are normalized by the value of a new component) to account for the cost of replacing nonstructural components demolished to access the structural member. If the same numerical example for IDR = 0.01 is carried out, the total loss from both components results in 0.05 of the total value of the story, this is a 47% increase over the approach that treats the components independently. Although this approach accounts for the partitions dependency on the steel beams, a significant portion of this increase in loss may be attributed to the fact that the repair cost of the partitions are counted twice.
CHAPTER 3
44
DM = 0, No Damage E[L | DM = 0] = 0.0 P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 74%
E[Lbms | IDR] = 0.026
TOTAL E[LTOTAL | IDR] = 0.05
DM =1, Fracture P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 26%
E[L | DM = 1] = 5.0
E[Lparts | IDR] =0.024
P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 13% DM = 2, Extensive cracking E[L | DM = 2] = 0.6 P(DM = 2 | IDR) = 47% DM = 3, Replacement reqd E[L | DM = 3] = 1.2 P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 35%
Figure 3.9 Probability tree for independent components that use double-counting to account for dependency
Thus far we have demonstrated that the first approach ignores the loss produced by repair actions that affect more than one component, therefore, may be underestimating the combined loss of both components. Although the second method accounts for this
dependency, it may be overestimating the loss because it double counts the repair of the dependent component. The actual loss will be somewhere in between the two methods. Therefore an approach that captures this dependency without double-counting is required. The proposed approach computes the loss such that the estimation of the dependent components damage is conditional on the damage state of the other component. Figure 3.10 shows the probability tree that illustrates this method. The partitions damage is now conditional on what damage state the steel beams are in, as represented by the branches of the partitions being stacked behind those of the beams. If the steel beam does not
experience damage, the partitions damage is estimated by using the same fragility functions as before. If the beam has been damaged, then only two possible damage states are considered: no damage and replacement required. Note that the replacement damage state is assigned a conditional probability of 100% to ensure that the partition will be replaced if we know that the beam has fractured.
CHAPTER 3
45
TOTAL

DM = 0, No Damage P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 74%
P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 13% DM = 2, Extensive cracking E[L | DM = 2] = 0.6 P(DM = 2 | IDR) = 47% DM = 3, Replacement reqd E[L | DM = 3] = 1.2
E[LTOTAL | IDR] = 0.038
P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 35% DM = 0, No Damage P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 0% E[L | DM = 0] = 0.0
DM = 3, Replacement reqd P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 100% E[L | DM = 1] = 2.0
Figure 3.10 Probability tree for proposed approach to account for dependent components.
Using the previous numerical example in the descriptions of the previous approaches, the total probability theorem can be carried though both branches to calculate that the expected loss from both components is 0.038 given an IDR of 0.01. As expected, this value is between the values generated by the previous approaches. It 12% greater than the first approach, where the components losses are calculated independently; however, it is 32% less than if the partition losses are double counted. This infers that double-counting creates a greater deviation in loss than assuming the components act independently. Instead at looking at a single value of IDR, a better comparison of the three approaches can be made by contrasting the resulting EDP-DV functions when both components are integrated using equation (3.7) over a range of IDRs. Figure 3.11 shows the EDP-DV functions of all three approaches. It appears that the trends from the numerical example of the loss at a given IDR = 0.01 can also be observed when comparing EDP-DV functions. The proposed approach is slightly larger than the approach that treats each component independently. The approach that double counts loss due to partition repairs, however, is significantly higher than the proposed approach. Again, this suggests that double-counting may introduce more error into loss estimates than treating each component independently
CHAPTER 3
46
E[L | IDR] 25.0%

Independent
20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.000
Dependent, w/ Double-counting Dependent w/o Double-counting
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.020
IDR
Figure 3.11 EDP-DV functions for three different approaches of handling component dependency
For this particular example, using conditional fragility functions did not have a significant difference in loss than if the components were treated independently. This can be explained examining the fragility functions of both components as shown in Figure 3.12. How much loss increases due to component dependence, depends on how much the fragility of the steel beam overlaps with the first two damage states of the partitions. If the steel beams fragility overlaps with these damage states, it means that there is a probability that the beams may fracture, initiating replacement, before small or extensive cracking is experienced in the partitions. The greater the overlap, the higher this probability is and the greater expected loss is. Although, these particular components have small levels of
overlap, other dependent components may have greater overlap, and have a more significant difference in expected losses than if the components were considered independent.
CHAPTER 3
47
P(DM | IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

Beam - DM1
0.2 0.0 0.000
Partition - DM1 Partition - DM2 Partition - DM3
0.010 IDR
0.020
0.030
Figure 3.12 Fragility functions for Pre-Northridge steel beams and partitions
The effect of component dependency will also be more significant if there are more than one component whose loss is conditioned on the damage of other components. Aslani and Miranda (2005) introduced the concept of partition-like components other components that needed to be replaced when a partition was replaced (ex. electrical wiring, plumbingetc.). They were assigned the same fragility as the one for the partitions third damage state for replacement, and therefore termed DS3 partition-like components. If the value of these DS3 partition-like components is incorporated into the previous example, and the calculations for expected loss at an IDR of 0.01 are repeated, the resulting loss is equal to 0.114. This is 33% greater than if the components were treated independently (which has an expected loss of 0.085 when DS 3 partition-like components are included). Figure 3.14 plots the corresponding EDP-DV functions to illustrate the effect of including more dependent components. Note that the losses become larger at smaller values of IDR
CHAPTER 3
48
TOTAL
PARTITIONS & DS3 COMPS aparts = 3.3% & aDS3 = 12.2%

DM = 0, No Damage P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 74%
P(DM = 1 | IDR) = 13% DM = 2, Extensive cracking E[L | DM = 2] = 0.6 P(DM = 2 | IDR) = 47% DM = 3, Replacement reqd E[L | DM = 3] = 1.2
E[LTOTAL | IDR] = 0.114
P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 35% DM = 0, No Damage P(DM = 0 | IDR) = 0% E[L | DM = 0] = 0.0
DM = 3, Replacement reqd P(DM = 3 | IDR) = 100% E[L | DM = 1] = 2.0
Figure 3.13 Probability tree for proposed approach, including other DS3 Partition-like components
E[L | IDR] 25.0%

Independent Dependent, w/o Double-counting
20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.000
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.020
IDR []
Figure 3.14 EDP-DV functions for proposed approach vs treating components independently, with DS3 Partition-like components included.
CHAPTER 3
49
3.6 DISCUSSION OF LIMITATIONS OF STORY-BASED APPROACH & EDPDV FUNCTIONS

The simplifications presented here offer numerous advantages in terms of computational efficiency and ease of use. Using a story-based approach in combination with EDP-DV functions to evaluate seismic-induced economic loss is not as complicated or computationally intensive as component-based methods, while still being able to capture building-specific behavior notably higher mode effects of multi-degree of freedom systems, nonlinear behavior of structures and repair cost variability that regional loss estimation methods can not. However, making the simplifications discussed in this chapter results in limitations on the level of detail of the loss analysis. The EDP-DV functions formulated in this study compute economic loss two dimensionally. This means that it is assumed that all components in a story are subjected to response parameters that act in only one direction and all components experience damage in same direction (i.e. the approach does not consider structural response that may result from both directional components of a ground motion nor does it account for the fact that components may be oriented in different directions). For example, the damage computed for all partitions in a story is only dependent on one value of IDR even though there may be structural displacements occurring in both primary planar directions of a structure. Further, it is assumed that all partitions are oriented in the same direction even though many of these walls may be perpendicular to each other. The EDP-DV functions can be modified to account for this by making assumptions on how the value of building components are distributed based on their orientation, such that there are functions available for both primary planar directions of a story. However, other three-dimensional effects, such as building torsion and vertical displacements/accelerations, are not accounted for. The loss of building components that are dependent between stories due to spatial or physical interaction is not captured by evaluating losses in each individual story. The expected economic losses of each story are assumed to be independent of each other. However, there may be instances where the loss of a component in one story is dependent on another story. For instance, a buildings sprinkler and/or piping system may span across several stories. If the system is centralized and is damaged on one floor, it may cause leakage and damage to other floors that were not necessarily subjected to large EDPs. This
CHAPTER 3
50
dependency can be accounted for in a similar way that dependent losses between components on the same story were considered in section 3.5. The functions developed in this study were limited on only three primary types of subsystems of building components: drift-sensitive structural components, drift-sensitive nonstructural components and acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components.
Considering only three types of subsystems reduces the amount of number tracking and computations required but may not always produce the best estimates for certain types of components. For instance, damage of structural components, such as reinforced concrete shear walls, may be better estimated by floor accelerations rather than interstory drifts. It has also been suggested that the damage of other building components is more correlated to floor velocities (i.e. velocity-sensitive components) rather than PFA or IDR. Further research is required to investigate how sensitive economic loss estimations are to these limitations that result from the simplifying assumptions made when using story-based methods.
3.7 CONCLUSIONS
A simplified approach to implementing the PEER loss estimation methodology, referred to here as story-based loss estimation, has been presented. The new approach collapses out the intermediate step of estimating damage to create generic relationships at the story-level between structural response parameters and loss (EDP-DV functions). These relationships can be established without knowing the buildings exact inventory ahead of time by using an assumed cost distribution based on knowing the buildings structural system and occupancy, and normalizing all repair costs by the entire value of the story. Functions for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames were developed and documented in this study to for use in loss assessments for these types of structures. The functions aggregate building components into 3 primary groups: drift-sensitive structural components, drift-sensitive components Assessment of the story EDP-DV functions yielded several significant findings. Comparing the functions of the 3 different component groups shows that losses due to driftsensitive, non-structural components will comprise the majority of the repair costs in a story nonstructural components, and acceleration-sensitive nonstructural
CHAPTER 3
51
of a standard office building. Functions for different locations along the height of the building (1st floor, typical floors, top floor), did not show significant difference in resulting losses, however, functions for buildings of varying heights (low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings), were found to differ substantially, suggesting that separate EDP-DV functions are required when analyzing buildings of different heights. As expected, the ductility of the structural concrete elements also had a substantial in affect on losses. The largest
difference was observed at an approximate IDR of 6%, where losses decreased by 11% of the story value (which represents a percent difference of 45%). Conversely, other structural variables examined, namely frame type (space vs. perimeter frame) and the level of gravity load on slab-column connections, did not have a significant impact on expected losses conditioned on EDP. Finally, the issue of loss estimation on spatially-interdependent
components was evaluated and the approach of conditional fragilities was introduced. It was found that treating components independently does not underestimate the losses substantially, and not as significantly as double counting the losses of dependant components overestimates the loss. The story-based loss estimation approach presented in this study, makes assessing earthquake-induced losses more efficient by not having to inventory every component in the considered building. Collapsing out the intermediate step of estimating damage also allows loss analysts to predict losses without having to deal directly with every fragility function associated with the inventoried components. As demonstrated in this study, the generic story EDP-DV functions developed can be used to identify what variables and fragilities significantly influence non-collapse loss results. The functions developed in this study, however, are limited by the data available at the time of publication. Assumptions using expert opinion were made where fragility function or cost data was unavailable. As
relevant data is collected, these story EDP-DV functions need to be updated accordingly. Further, there are many components of the nonstructural components that did not have specific fragility functions and generic fragilities were used in their place. Although using these generic functions is an improvement from previous studies that have ignored their contribution to the loss, they must be eventually replaced with fragilities developed from experimental data.
CHAPTER 3
52
CHAPTER 4
4 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPONENT FRAGILTIY FUNCTIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA

This chapter is based on the following publication: Ramirez, C.M., Kolios, D., and Miranda, E. (2008), Fragility Assessment of PreNorthridge Welded Steel Moment-Resisting Beam-Column Connection, Journal of Structural Engineering, (in press).
4.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER

Ramirez headed up this research effort by computing the fragility functions and confidence bands, developing methods to account for other parameters that influence the probability distribution parameters and authoring the publication. Kolios consolidated the experimental data used to develop the response-damage relationships and formulated some of the preliminary functions for this investigation. Miranda served as advisor and principal investigator for this project.
4.2 INTRODUCTION
Prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, steel moment resisting frame buildings were widely regarded as one of the best structural systems to resist lateral loads generated by seismic events. In particular, moment resisting beam-to-column connections in welded steel moment frames (WSMF) were considered to be able to withstand large inelastic deformations without developing significant strength degradation or instabilities. Should damage occur in these frames, it would be limited to ductile yielding of beams and beamcolumn connections (FEMA, 2000a). The moment connection detail most commonly used
CHAPTER 4
53
Development of Component Fragility Functions from Experimental data
in seismic regions in the U.S. between 1970 and 1994 (prior to the Northridge earthquake) was the welded flange-bolted web connection shown in Figure 4.1. In this type of connection the beam flanges are connected to the column using complete joint penetration (CJP) single-bevel groove welds while the beam web is bolted to a single shear plate tab which is welded to the column.
Complete joint penetration Top & Bottom Flange W Steel Beam
Fillet Weld Each side Shear tab w/ bolts
Figure 4.1 Typical Detail of Pre-Northridge Moment Resisting Beam-to-Column Joint
While investigating the effects of supplement welds placed between the beam web and the shear tab, Engelhardt and Husain (1993) observed that welded flange-bolted web steel moment connections could experience fractures at relatively low levels of deformation. Of the eight specimens they tested, only one was able to reach a plastic rotation of 0.015. Analysis of their results, together with a re-examination of the plastic rotation capacity attained in five previous experimental investigations, led them to conclude that this type of connection had highly variable performance with a significant number of specimens having poor or marginal performance when subjected to cyclic loading. They expressed concern that the performance of this widely used connection was not as reliable as once thought. Soon after the publication of their study, the January 17th, 1994
Northridge, California confirmed their concerns. Consolidated damage reports from the Northridge earthquake and found that of 155 steel moment resisting frame buildings inspected, 90 of them experienced some connection damage (FEMA-355E, 2000). Close inspection of buildings following the earthquake
CHAPTER 4 54 Development of Component Fragility Functions from Experimental data
showed that many steel moment-frame buildings experienced fractures in their beam-tocolumn connections. Damaged buildings were between one to 26 stories and with ages ranging from as old as 30 years to brand new buildings. (FEMA 350) Although several
different types of fractures were observed, observations from damaged buildings as well as experimental results conducted after the earthquake as part of the SAC joint venture indicated that fracture of the bottom flange is more likely to occur in this type of connection and that it is typically initiated at the center of the beam flange. The occurrence of the initial fracture produces a large and sudden loss in moment-resisting capacity which in many cases leads to a subsequent fracture of the other flange and/or fracture in the web shear connection either by fracturing the shear single plate tab by shearing off one of more bolts connecting the tab to the beam web. Even more disconcerting was that, in certain cases, several studies indicate that these fractures occurred in buildings that experienced ground motions less intense than the code specified design level earthquake (FEMA, 2000c). Consequently, building owners, insurance companies and other stakeholders suffered significant economic losses associated with repairing these connections. There is a growing trend in earthquake engineering to move towards a performancebased design where, in addition to having an adequate safety against collapse, a structure is designed to reduce the risk of economic losses and temporary loss of use (downtime) to levels that are acceptable to owners and other stakeholders. Whether one is interested in assessing the probability of collapse or in assessing possible economic losses or downtime of WSMF buildings built prior to 1994 a necessary component in this assessment is a procedure to predict the occurrence of different damage states in the beam-to-column connections at different levels of ground motion intensity. One way of estimating damage is by using fragility functions. Fragility functions are cumulative probability distributions that estimate the probability that a building component will reach or exceed a level of damage when subjected to a particular value of a structural response parameter. These functions are used as part of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Centers performance-based design methodology to estimate damage and corresponding economic losses as a measure of seismic performance.(Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004; Miranda 2006). There have been previous attempts to consolidate experimental data on preNorthridge steel moment frame beam-to-column connections, however, none these studies have successfully related damage limit states to drift or other demand parameters.
Engelhardt and Husains (1993) study did include a review of five previous experimental investigations, but they did not conduct any statistical analyses the data they collected. Roeder and Foutch (1996) conducted an extensive study of past experiments to investigate possible causes of fracture in these types of connections. They compared different test programs and performed statistical analyses on the data, and determined that panel zone yielding and beam depth have significant influences on the flexural ductility of preNorthridge connections. Unfortunately, Roeder and Foutch (1996) did not develop fragility functions for this type of connections. There have been some studies that have developed fragility functions. For example, Song and Ellingwood (1999) developed fragility functions for steel moment resisting frame buildings; however, the fragility functions in that study were only concerned with the reliability of the structure as whole, rather than the estimation of damage in individual beam-to-column connections. The study provided estimates of the probability of being or exceeding qualitative measures of performance, similar to those defined in FEMA-356 (2000), as a function of a ground motion intensity measure, namely spectral acceleration. Measuring performance in this manner makes loss estimation
difficult because the limit states are not well-defined and can not be easily translated into quantifiable metrics of loss (i.e. dollars, downtimeetc.). The objective of this study is to consolidate existing experimental test data of PreNorthridge moment resisting connections and use it to develop fragility functions to estimate damage in pre-Northridge welded flange-bolted web beam-to-column connections as a function of interstory drift ratio, IDR.
4.3 DAMAGE STATE DEFINITIONS

Pre-Northridge steel moment-resisting beam-column connections may typically experience different types of damage, such as yielding, local buckling and fracture, and this damage may occur at various locations (e.g. at the column flanges, the column web, the beam flanges, the beam webetc.). Two distinct damage states, yielding and fracture, were adopted in this study. These damage states can be related to specific repair actions that will help estimate the economic loss, and eventually downtime and casualties. Local buckling of the beam and column flanges may have important consequences related to repair/replacement actions and therefore was also considered as another possible damage
CHAPTER 4
56
state, however, this failure mode did not occur very often in the experiments included in this study or the drift at which it was first observed was often not reported. Therefore, there was not enough data reported on local buckling to generate reliable fragility functions for this type of damage.
DS1 Yielding: In a beam-column subassembly, yielding may first occur at different locations such as flanges or webs of beams or columns. The experiments reviewed during this study did not always clearly document how the occurrence of yielding was identified. In some cases yielding may be identified from strain gages or displacement transducers at locations where displacements are imposed in the subassembly. Most of the studies
reported the drift at which yielding was initiated, and cases where it was not reported, it was inferred in our study from the force-displacement plots presented in the reports. Yielding in pre-Northridge connections primarily takes the form of flange beam yielding or column panel zone yielding. However, for the purposes of this study, the first reported occurrence of yielding anywhere on the specimen was used to define the IDR at which this damage state is induced. Note that this damage state is not as important when estimating economic losses because typically no repair actions are required when a structural steel member yields (assuming that any residual displacement is small). However, the information provided by a fragility function that estimates yielding may be used to help identify the threshold at which nonlinear behavior initiates in the steel member. This type of information can be useful when trying to predict structural parameters such as residual story drifts.
DS2 Fracture: Fracture is a failure mode occurring when molecular bonds in the metal matrix begin to physically separate, resulting in a sudden loss in the joints strength. Fracture often occurs in the complete joint penetration welds that connected the beam flanges to the column face; however, fracture was also observed in the beam flanges and the column flanges. It is particularly important to be able to predict this damage state because it leads to expensive repairs and downtime. Further, if it occurs in sufficient number of connections, it may lead to a local or global collapse of the structure. As with the damage state for yielding, the first reported occurrence of fracture anywhere on the specimen by the experimental study was used to define the IDR this damage state initiates.
CHAPTER 4
57
4.4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS USED IN THIS STUDY

Previous experimental research conducted on Pre-Northridge steel welded flange, bolted web moment-resisting beam-to-column connections were reviewed and included as part of this study. Data was drawn from the SAC Phase 1 (SAC, 1996) project and from other studies that have been conducted over the past 26 years (Popov and Stephen, 1970; Popov et al., 1985; Tsai and Popov, 1986; Anderson and Linderman, 1991; Engelhardt and Husain, 1992; Whittaker et al.,1998; Uang and Bondad, 1996; Shuey et al., 1995; Popov et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2003). Most of the data was taken from single-sided tests, where there was only one beam attached to a column (Figure 4.2(a)), but one of the investigations, Popov et al. (1985), used a setup that conducted double-sided tests that had beams on either side of the column (Figure 4.2(b)). Only specimens that used complete-joint penetration single bevel groove welds to connect the beam flanges to the column and bolted shear tabs that connected the beam web to the column were considered in this study. Overall, data was taken from 10 experimental studies, five conducted before the Northridge earthquake and five conducted after the Northridge earthquake for a total of 51 test specimens. Table 4.1summarizes all the experimental results considered to formulate our fragility functions. Both yielding and fracture occurred in all the specimens.
CHAPTER 4
58
LcL
h/2
Location of Applied Load
h/2
W Steel Beam W Steel Column
(a)
LcL
Location of Applied Load
W Steel Column
W Steel Beam
(b)
Figure 4.2 Typical Test Setups (a) Single Sided (b) Double Sided
With the exception of the tests conducted by Popov et al. (1985), all of the specimens were set up in a single-sided configuration and loaded by displacing the free-end of the beam as shown in Figure 4.2a. This displacement of the beams free end, can be
used to calculate the joint rotation, and thus the equivalent interstory drift, by dividing it by the length between the beam end and the column centerline, LcL. Popov et al.s (1985) investigation used a two-sided configuration, as shown in Figure 4.2b, and loaded these specimens by displacing the free ends of the upper and lower columns. Interstory drift was calculated by taking this displacement, and dividing it by the half the total height of the
CHAPTER 4
59
column. The interstory drifts at which each damage state occurs for each specimen is reported in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1 Properties of experimental specimens considered in this study

Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beam Properties References Whittaker et al. (1998) Whittaker et al. (1998) Whittaker et al. (1998) Uang & Bondad (1996) Uang & Bondad (1996) Uang & Bondad (1996) Shuey et al. (1996) Shuey et al. (1996) Shuey et al. (1996) Popov et al. (1995) Popov et al. (1995) Popov et al. (1995) Popov & Stephen (1970) Popov & Stephen (1970) Popov & Stephen (1970) Popov & Stephen (1970) Popov & Stephen (1970) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Engelhardt & Husain (1992) Shape W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W36x150 W36x150 W36x150 W36x150 W36x150 W36x150 W18x50 W18x50 W18x50 W24x76 W24x76 W24x55 W24x55 W24x55 W18x60 W18x60 W21x57 W21x57 W21x57 db [cm] 75.4 75.4 75.4 75.4 75.4 75.4 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 45.7 45.7 45.7 60.7 60.7 59.9 59.9 59.9 46.3 46.3 53.5 53.5 53.5 Lb [cm] 340 340 340 361 361 361 340 340 340 342 342 342 213 213 213 213 213 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 Lcl [cm] 360 360 360 361 361 310 361 361 361 362 362 362 227 227 227 227 227 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 Coupon [Mpa] 347 335 325 321 321 321 292 292 292 418 418 280 310 310 310 248 248 287 287 287 282 282 265 265 265 Shape W14x176 W14x176 W14x176 W14x176 W14x176 W14x176 W14x257 W14x257 W14x257 W14x257 W14x257 W14x257 W12x106 W12x106 W12x106 W12x106 W12x106 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 W12x136 Column Properties dc [cm] 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Hcol [cm] 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 351 351 351 229 229 229 229 229 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 Coupon [Mpa] 341 369 386 353 353 353 336 336 336 333 372 333 248 248 248 248 248 379 379 379 379 379 379 379 379
Specimen No. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Beam Properties References Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Anderson & Linderman (1991) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Popov et al. (1985) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Tsai & Popov (1986) Kim et al. (2003) Kim et al. (2003) Kim et al. (2003) Shape W16X26 W16X40 W16X40 W16X26 W16X26 W16X40 W16X40 W16X40 W18x50 W18x50 Built-up: Built-up: Built-up: W18x71 W18x71 W18x35 W21x44 W18x35 W21x44 W18x35 W21x44 W18x35 W21x44 W33x118 W36x232 W36x210 db [cm] 39.9 40.6 40.6 39.9 39.9 40.6 40.6 40.6 45.7 45.7 47.6 47.6 47.6 47.0 47.0 45.0 52.6 45.0 52.6 45.0 52.6 45.0 52.6 83.6 94.2 93.2 L b [cm] 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 142 142 140 140 140 137 137 165 160 161 161 161 161 161 161 206 371 374 L cl [cm] 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 149 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 182 179 180 180 180 180 180 180 229 411 411 Coupon [Mpa] 322 290 380 417 341 322 324 322 320 320 262 262 262 300 300 356 335 353 308 N/A 308 319 290 419 393 390 Shape
Column Properties d c [cm] 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 34.0 45.7 45.7 48.6 48.6 48.6 54.9 54.9 34.0 38.6 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1 45.7 80.0 74.4 Hcol [cm] 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 417 417 417 Coupon [Mpa] 335 356 335 321 321 286 261 285 338 338 338 338 338 414 414 389 386 438 316 N/A 316 384 290 419 393 376
BOX 11-1.25-0.75 BOX 11-0.75-0.75 BOX 11-1.25-0.75 BOX 11-1-0.75 BOX 11-1-0.75 BOX 11-0.75-0.75 BOX 11-0.75-0.75 W12X136 Built-up Built-up Built-up Built-up Built-up W21x93 W21x93 W12x133 W14x176 W14x159 W14x159 W14x159 W14x159 W14x159 W14x159 BC18x18x257 BC31.5x13x464 W27x281
CHAPTER 4
60
Table 4.2 Interstory drifts at each damage state for each specimen
Specimen Specimen IDRDS1 [%] IDRDS2 [%] IDRDS1 [%] IDRDS2 [%] No. No. 1 0.74 1.98 27 0.52 1.67 2 0.74 3.95 28 0.74 1.83 3 0.74 2.97 29 0.78 1.83 4 0.65 0.94 30 0.43 1.57 5 0.95 0.94 31 0.52 1.44 6 0.82 1.87 32 0.42 1.67 7 0.70 0.70 33 0.60 1.53 8 0.53 1.41 34 0.91 1.85 9 0.53 0.70 35 0.93 3.71 10 0.55 2.10 36 0.56 2.16 11 0.60 1.40 37 0.55 2.47 12 0.63 2.10 38 0.57 2.01 13 0.62 2.76 39 0.77 3.49 14 0.61 3.65 40 0.74 3.86 15 0.50 2.65 41 0.41 1.50 16 0.56 4.90 42 0.51 1.21 17 0.56 1.77 43 0.52 1.84 18 0.73 1.17 44 0.43 2.54 19 0.73 1.17 45 ** 0.41 20 0.97 1.70 46 0.34 0.77 21 0.97 1.07 47 0.33 1.91 22 0.88 2.19 48 0.39 1.65 23 0.97 1.95 49 0.75 0.76 24 0.97 2.43 50 0.38 0.59 25 0.88 1.95 51 0.38 0.58 26 0.41 1.30
4.5 FRAGILITY FUNCTION FORMULATION

The data consolidated from the experimental studies listed in Table 4.2 was used to develop drift-based fragility functions for yielding and fracture. As observed from Table 4.2, the interstory drift ratio at which the beam-column specimens reach these damage states varies significantly from test to test. When estimating damage in existing WSMF buildings built prior to 1994, it is important to account for this variability. Drift-based fragility functions capture this specimen-to-specimen variability, providing a way of estimating the probability that the joint will experience or exceed a particular damage state given an imposed interstory drift demand. Fragility functions were created for each damage state as described in the preceding sections.
CHAPTER 4
61
Fragility functions are cumulative frequency distribution functions that provide the variation of increasing probability of reaching or exceeding a damage state as interstory drift increases. These functions are generated by first sorting the data, in ascending order, by the interstory drift ratio at which the damage was reported for each damage state. These values are then plotted against their cumulative probability of occurrence. In this study the cumulative probability of occurrence was computed using the following equation:
(i 0.5) n
(4.1)
where i is the position of the peak interstory drift ratio within the sorted data and n is the number of specimens. This equation is also known as Hazens Model, and is one of several commonly-used equations used to compute quantiles. This particular definition was
selected because previous research has shown this definition limits the amount of bias introduced into the plotting position (Cunnane 1978). It also prevents the first data point in a sample to be assigned a probability of 0 (i.e. the damage state will never occur at this drift), and the last data point with a probability of 1 (i.e. the damage state is guaranteed to occur at this drift), which is unrealistic. However, the differences between the different definitions of the quantile are subtle and for large sample sizes, all of them converge to the same value. After the data is plotted, a lognormal cumulative distribution function was fitted to the data points, by using its logarithmic statistical parameters to define the function. It has been well-established that the lognormal distribution provides relatively good fit to empirical cumulative distributions computed from experimental data (Aslani 2005; Aslani and Miranda 2005; Pagni and Lowes 2006; Brown and Lowes 2007). The equation of this fitted function is given by:
P( DS
dsi IDR idr )
Ln(idr ) Ln( IDR )

LnIDR
(4.2)
CHAPTER 4
62
where P(DS
dsi IDR = idr) is the probability of experiencing or exceeding damage state
i, Ln IDR is the natural logarithm of the counted median of the interstory drift ratios (IDRs) at which damage state i was observed, logarithm of the IDRs, and
LnIDR
is the standard deviation of the natural
is the cumulative standard normal distribution. Alternatively,
Ln IDR
can be replaced by the geometric mean, which is the mean of the natural
logarithm of the data. To ensure that the fitted functions are not skewed by outlying data points, outliers were identified and removed from our fragilities. Chauvenets outlier criterion (Barnett 1978, Hawkins 1980, and Barnett and Lewis 1995), given by the following equations, was used to determine whether or not the data points would be included:
plower
1 2n 1 1 2n
(4.3)
pupper
(4.4)
If a data points cumulative probability was smaller than the probability calculated with Equation (4.3), or was greater than the probability calculated with Equation (4.4), then it was excluded from the data set. Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit tests (Benjamin and Cornell 1970) were conducted to verify that the cumulative distribution function could be assumed to be lognormally distributed. This was done by plotting graphical representations of this test for 10% significance levels on the same graph as the data and its fitted cumulative distribution function. If all the data points lie within the bounded significance levels, the assumed cumulative distribution function fits the empirical data adequately. In addition to the specimen to specimen variability, statistical uncertainty was considered to account for inherent uncertainty in the proposed fragility functions because their parameters have been established using data with a limited amount of specimens (finite-sample uncertainty). This uncertainty is quantified by bounding our fitted lognormal cumulative distribution function with confidence intervals of the median and dispersion
CHAPTER 4
63
parameters of IDR for each damage state. Conventional statistical methods can be used to establish the confidence intervals because our underlying probability distribution is lognormal. Crow et al. (1960) proposed the following equation to approximate the
confidence intervals of a lognormally distributed sample:
IDR exp
LnIDR /2
(4.5)
where z
/2
is the value in the standard normal distribution such that the probability of a
/2
random deviation numerically greater than z
is
, and n is the number of data points.
90% confidence intervals can were obtained and plotted for each fragility function.
4.5.1
Fragility Functions for Yielding The experimental data used included specimens that were fabricated from both A36
and A572 grade 50 steel (Fy = 36 ksi and 50 ksi, respectively). The data was divided into these two categories because the A36 specimens are expected to yield at lower drifts. It was found that the difference in IDRs in the two groups was statistically significant. Therefore, two separate fragility functions were created based on the yielding stress of the specimen. When the test specimen consisted of members fabricated from differing types of steel (e.g. the beam made from A36 and the column made from A572 grade 50), the specimen was categorized based on the member where yielding first occurred. Figure 4.3a displays the fragility function for test specimens whose yielded members were fabricated from A36 steel, while Figure 4.3b displays the fragility function for A572 grade 50 steel. Statistical parameters for both functions are listed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Uncorrected statistical parameters for IDRs corresponding to the damage states for PreNorthridge beam-column joints
CHAPTER 4
64
Damage State DS1: Yielding A36: Uncorrected Raw Data A572: Uncorrected Raw Data DS2: Fracture (Uncorrected)
Median IDR [%] 0.56 0.74 1.85
Geometric Mean IDR 0.59 0.71 1.79
LnIDR
Number of Specimens
(Outliers Removed)
0.32 0.19 0.47
32 16 50
P(DS|IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
DS = Yielding (A36) (a)
Data Fitted Curve K-S Test, 10% Signif.
1.5
2.0
Interstory Drift, IDR [%]
P(DS|IDR) 1.0
DS = Yielding (A572) (b)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Interstory Drift, IDR [%]
Data Fitted Curve K-S Test, 10% Signif.
Figure 4.3 Yielding without Correction for Span-to-Depth Ratio (a) A36 (b) A572 grade 50
CHAPTER 4
65
Given an IDR, the fragility functions shown in Figure 4.3a and 3b can be used to estimate the probability of experiencing yielding in pre-Northridge beam-column connections. However, the accuracy of these predictions are dependent on whether the test setups and member sizes of the experimental data used to create the fragility functions are representative of the beam-to-column connections used in practice. Parameters that
strongly influence the IDR at which yielding occurs must be identified, to determine if their values in the experimental data are representative of those used in practice. The influence of various parameters was identified by plotting them against their corresponding IDR and linear regression was conducted to develop relationships. A T-test (Benjamin and Cornell 1970) was used to determine which parameters statistically influenced the yielding IDR. Test specimen parameters tested included beam depth, flange thickness and beam span-todepth ratio. Of these parameters, beam span-to-depth ratio was the only that exhibited statistical significance based on the T-test criterion. The relationship between span-to-depth ratio (L/db, where L, the centerline span of the beam , is equal to 2*LcL) and the joints yielding IDR, was further investigated by conducting linear regression on the two random variables. Figure 4.4a plots the natural logarithm of the test specimens yielding IDR as a function the beams L/db for the A36 specimen. As shown in this figure, there is a clear trend that beams with small span-todepth ratios require less deflection/drift to initiate yielding in the beam-column joint. 95% confidence intervals on the regressed linear trend computed from the data are also plotted in the figure. The regression yields a significant correlation coefficient of 0.64, confirming the statistical significance indicated by the T-test. The mean beams L/db for the A36 specimens is 8.25, that corresponds to a median IDR of 0.56%. The trend between L/db and ln(IDR) for the A572 grade 50 specimens is not as strong. The correlation coefficient in this case is only 0.19. The mean L/db for the A572 grade 50 specimens is 8.0 at a corresponding median IDR of 0.74%. The lower correlation of the A572 grade 50 specimens may be largely due to the smaller sample size of experimental joints made from this type of steel, but also due to the fact that in most A572 grade 50 specimens yielding was not initiated in the beams but in the panel zones and therefore the beams L/db has a smaller influence.
CHAPTER 4
66
ln(IDR) [% ]
0.4 (a) 0.0
-0.4
-0.8
Data Fitted Data 95% Confid. on Mean Theoretical
-1.2 6 8 10 12 Span-to-Depth Ratio, SDR
ln(IDR) [% ]
0.4 (b) 0.0
-0.4
-0.8
Data Fitted Line 95% Confid. on Mean Theoretical
-1.2 4 6 8 10 12 Span-to-Depth Ratio, SDR
Figure 4.4 Span-to-Depth Ratios relationship to Interstory drift (a) A36 (b) A572 grade 50
Shortly after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Youssef et al. (1995) conducted a survey of steel moment-resisting frame buildings that were affected by the earthquake. According of their report, the buildings surveyed had a mean L/db of 10. Assuming that this can serve as a fairly accurate representation of typical span-to-depth ratios used in practice, we can conclude that the functions displayed in Figure 4.3, if used directly to estimate damage in existing steel moment-resisting frame buildings built prior to 1994, may result in
CHAPTER 4
67
underestimations of yielding IDR (which would lead to over predicting yielding), because the test specimens used to develop these functions have a smaller span-to-depth ratios.
Table 4.4 Summary of Yousef et al.s Building Survey Results for Typical Girder Sizes of Existing Buildings
Typical Girder (1) W14/16 W18 W21 W24 W27 W30 W33 W36 No of Bldgs (2) 6 9 12 23 19 20 20 30 FloorFrames (3) 48 46 112 135 56 106 174 533 1210 Min Bay [m] (4) 4.6 3.7 3.4 4 4.9 4 4.9 4.6 Avg Bay [m] (5) 5.8 6.1 5.5 7 7.9 7.6 8.5 7.9 Max Bay [m] (6) 8.5 12.2 12.2 10.4 12.2 12.8 12.8 14 Weight (7) 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.44 Beam Depth [cm] db Weighted Avg. (8) (9) 38 1.5 46 1.7 53 4.9 61 6.8 69 3.2 76 6.7 84 12.1 91 40.3 77.2 Span-to-depth ratio L/d b Weighted Avg. (10) (11) 15.2 0.6 13.3 0.5 10.3 1.0 11.5 1.3 11.5 0.5 10.0 0.9 10.1 1.5 8.6 3.8 10.0
Notes: - Column (10) is the calculated average span-to-depth ratio calculated by dividing (5) by (8) accounting for unit conversion - A weighted average was used based on the number of floor frames included in Yousef et al.'s study. The weight (7) is found by taking the value of (3) and dividing it by the sum of column (3). For example, the weighted average for span-to-depth ratio is obtained by multiplying (7) by (10) to get (11), and then summing up column (11).
There are different alternatives approaches that one may use to modify the fragility functions shown in Figure 4.3. A first approach is to compute the median IDR as a function of the L/db ratio as follows:
IDR
exp[ a b L db ]
(4.6)
where IDRy is the geometric mean IDR at yielding, and a and b are dimensionless coefficients the y-intercept and the slope of the linear regression relationship respectively. Table 4.5 documents the values of the regression coefficients, a and b, for the data considered in this study for both A36 and A572 grade 50 specimens. In cases in which the L/db ratio is not known, one could use an L/db of 10 (based on Yousef et al.s survey), in equation (4.6) and then the median IDRy become 0.77and 0.76 for A36 and A572 gr 50 specimens, respectively (see also Table 4.6). In cases where L/db is known, small reductions in dispersion are achieved to 0.24 for A36 specimens and to 0.18 for A572 grade 50 specimens (Table 4.6).
CHAPTER 4
68
P(DS|IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5
DS = Yielding (A36)
Original Function Corrected Function 90% Confid. Intervals
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 4.5 Recommended Fragility Function corrected for Span-to-Depth Ratio with 90% confidence bands
Table 4.5 Regression coefficients for relationship between IDRy and L/db
Regression Parameters Y-intercept, a Slope, b A36 Specimens -1.83 0.16 A572 Specimens -0.56 0.028
Table 4.6 Recommended statistical parameters for fragility functions

Damage State Information Available Only type of connection DS1: Type of connection and L/d b Yielding Type of connection and member data Only type of connection DS2: Fracture Type of connection and d b
Notes: L = centerline span = 2LcL IDRy analytically computed insterstory drift at yielding For Fracture, there is no statistical difference with the type of steel.
Type of Steel A36 A572 Gr. 50 A36 A572 Gr. 50 A36 A572 Gr. 50 A36 & A572 Gr. 50 A36 & A572 Gr. 50
Median IDR [%] 0.77 0.76 exp [-1.83 + 0.16*(L/d b )] exp [-0.56 + 0.028*(L/d b )] 1.42(IDR y ) 1.25(IDR y ) 1.85 exp [-0.99 + 0.0074*(d b )]
LnIDR
0.32 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.47 0.44
CHAPTER 4
69
Correction to account for different L/db ratios can also be done by deriving an analytical expression of the IDR at yield as a function of L/db. Krawinkler et al. (2000) derived equations that calculated IDRs for typical steel moment-resisting frame beamcolumn connection test setups. In their approach, the IDR was computed as the sum of the terms corresponding to three separate equations that represent the contributions of beam flexure (IDRb), column flexure (IDRc), and panel zone shear (IDRPZ) as follows:
IDRy
IDRb
IDRc
IDRPZ
(4.7)
where,
IDRb
LcL
dc 3 2
3EI b h db 12 EI c
3
P LcL
(4.8)
IDRc
PLcL h2 1 h
(4.9)
IDRPZ
h db PL 1 h As G db
(4.10)
where P is the load imposed on the specimen, dc is the depth of the column, h is the height of the column, Ic is the columns moment of inertia, db is the depth of the beam, Ib is the beams moment of inertia, L is the distance from the beam-end to the face of the column, E is Youngs modulus and G is the corresponding shear modulus. Equations (4.7) to (4.10) are only true under the following simplifying assumptions (Krawinkler et al. 2000): (i) inflection points are assumed to occur at mid-height and at mid-span in columns and beams, respectively; (ii) the is no vertical deflection in the point of inflection in the beam; (iii) localized deformations in welds or slippage in bolted connections are ignored.
Assuming yielding will occur first in the beam we can express IDR due to beam flexure in terms of the beams strain, y, and replace Equation (4.8) with:
IDRb
dc 2 1 3 2 LcL
LcL db
(4.11)
Then equations (4.8)-(4.10) can be re-written in terms of L/db as follows:
IDRb
1 dc 1 3 2 LcL h db 12h LcL h db h db LcL

2 2 3 dc 2
Fy E
L db
(4.12)
IDRc
I b Fy L db Ic E I b Fy L db tc d c E
(4.13)
2 dc 2
IDRPZ
2.6
(4.14)
where Fy is the material yield stress and tc is the columns web thickness. By using equations (4.12)-(4.14) in equation (4.7) it is then possible to compute IDR at yield as a function of L/db Table 4.7 displays mean values taken from our test specimens for the parameters that are used in the derived analytical equations above. Figure 4.4a and b show the analytical expression computed with these equation using the mean values indicated in Table 4.7. It can be seen that, in both cases, the analytical expression falls within the 95% confidence intervals suggesting that the linear regression of our data set follows the analytical prediction.
Table 4.7 Average values for parameters in Equation (9), relating L/db and IDR
CHAPTER 4
71
Parameters Beam Properties Coupon Yielding Stress, F y [Mpa] Beam Depth, d b [cm] Moment of Inertia, I b [cm ] Span-to-depth ratio, SDR Column Properties Height of Column, h [cm] Column Depth, d c [cm] Web Thickness, t c [cm] Moment of Inertia, I c [cm]
4
Mean Values A36 A572 Specimens Specimens 310 54 79,084 8.25 234 34 2.4 59,937 352 66 145,681 7.91 264 44 2.2 90,322
In cases in which there is enough information (e.g., section geometry and nominal material properties) to analytically compute the interstory drift at which yielding will be initiated, then experimental information shown in Table 4.2 can be used to obtain a fragility function specifically for each connection by considering a random variable , defined as the ratio of the IDR in which yielding was observed in the test to the analytical yielding IDR as follows:
IDRObserved IDRy
(4.15)
Figure 4.6 shows the cumulative distribution functions of
for both the A36
specimens and the A572 grade 50 specimens. Figure 6 also shows fitted lognormal distributions computed with parameters listed in Table 4.6 and 10% significance curves corresponding to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, suggesting that the random variable also be assumed to be lognormally distributed. can
CHAPTER 4
72
P(DS | ) 1.0
for A36 (a)
0.8 0.6 0.4

Data
0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
Fitted Curve K-S Test, 10% Significance
3.0
Correction Factor,
P(DS | 1.0
for A572 (b)
0.8 0.6 0.4

Data
0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
Fitted Curve K-S Test, 10% Significance
3.0
Correction Factor,
Figure 4.6 Fragility Functions for
to be used in conjunction with an analytical prediction of IDRy (a) A36 (b) A572 grade 50
For a given beam-to-column connection one would first compute analytically the IDR corresponding to the onset of yielding and the median of the fragility function is then computed as the product of IDRy and the median of fragility is set equal to the dispersion of Meanwhile the dispersion in the
shown in Table 4.6. It should be noted that using
this procedure a further reduction in dispersion was obtained for A36 specimens, however for A572 grade 50 specimens the dispersion increased due to the fact that in several
CHAPTER 4
73
specimens the location of yielding observed in the test was different to that predicted analytically. As an example of the latter approach, consider a pre-Northridge beam-to-column connection between a W36x150 beam with a L/db ratio of 10 and W14x257 column both made from A572 grade 50 steel. Using equations(4.7), (4.12), (4.13) and (4.14) one computes IDRAnalytical =0.84 which considering the median and dispersion of shown in
table 6 results in the fragility function shown in Figure 4.7, which has a median of 1.05% and logarithmic standard deviation of 0.32. Ninety percent confidence levels that account for the statistical uncertainty are also shown in the figure.
P(DS|IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 IDR [%] 2.0
A572
Fitted Function 90% Confid. Intervals
3.0
Figure 4.7 Example Fragility Function for W36 beam generated by using
(A572 grade 50)
4.5.2
Fragility Functions for Fracture Fragility functions were also generated to estimate the probability of fracture as a
function of IDR. Unlike the yielding limit state in which an analytical prediction is possible and therefore fragility functions were derived by using either a purely empirical approach (i.e., entirely based on the experimental results) or by using a hybrid analyticalexperimental approach, for fracture there is not a reliable way to analytically estimate the drift at which fracture is likely to occur in these connections, therefore in this case fragilities were only based on experimental results. In the case of fracture the drifts at which A36
specimens fractured were not statistically different from the drifts at which A572 grade 50 specimens fractured, therefore all specimens were analyzed in the same group. Figure 4.8 shows the fragility function for fracture and its K-S goodness-of-fit test for 90% significance levels corresponding to all specimens. The counted median IDR is 1.85%, the geometric mean is 1.79% and the logarithmic standard deviation is 0.47. It should be noted that the variability in fracture is significantly larger than that observed for yielding.
P(DS| IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
DS = Fracture
Data Fitted Curve K-S Test, 10% Significance
3.0
4.0
Figure 4.8 Fragility Function for Fracture
Roeder and Foutch (1996) showed that beams of pre-Northridge joints with larger depths have significantly smaller flexural ductility than shallower beams. Furthermore, their work was the basis for creating relationships between beam depth plastic rotation capacity as described in FEMA-355D (FEMA, 2000b). This study also investigated the effect of beam depth on the drift at which fracture is likely to occur in this type of connections by using the data in Table 4.2. Figure 4.9 shows the plot of the natural logarithm of IDR as a function of beam depth. Consistent with Roeder and Foutch
observations, it can be seen that the IDR at which fracture occurs decreases as beam depth increases. Using linear regression on this sample, the median IDR at which fracture occurs can be estimated as a function of the beam depth by using the following equation:
CHAPTER 4
75
IDR
exp[0.99 0.0074 d b ]
(4.16)
where db is the depth of the beam (in cm). Equation (4.16) is also plotted in Figure 4.9 along with 95% confidence intervals on the mean. It should noted that this equation is not directly comparable to the equations developed by Roeder and Foutch in FEMA-355D (2000) because those equations were based on beam ductility and beam plastic rotation capacity, rather than on the IDR of the connection. The fragility function corresponding to fracture can then constructed by first estimating the median parameter using equation (4.16) and using a somewhat smaller logarithmic standard deviation of 0.44. Figure 4.10
illustrates an example of a fragility created with this procedure, using the calculated weighted average of beam depth from Yousef et al.s survey (1995, see Table 4.4), and enveloped by 90% confidence intervals associated with the statistical uncertainty produced by computing the parameters of the fragility function using a small sample size (i.e., a small number of experimental tests). Figure 4.11 also implements this procedure using the beam depth of a specific steel shape (W36x150, the same shape used above in the yielding fragility example) as an example for users that have this information.
ln(IDR) [% ]
2.0
1.0
0.0
Data Fitted Data 95% Confid. Intervals
-1.0 0 30 60 90 120 Beam Depth, d b [cm]
Figure 4.9 Relationship between IDR at fracture and beam depth for all specimens.
CHAPTER 4
76
P(DS| IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
DS = Fracture
Corrected Function 90% Confid. Intervals Original Function
3.0
4.0
Figure 4.10 Recommended fragility function corrected for beam depth with 90% confidence bands
P(DS| IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
DS = Fracture
Corrected Function 90% Confid. Intervals
3.0
4.0
Figure 4.11 Example corrected fragility for W36 when beam depth is known.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
Fragility functions for pre-Northridge steel beam-column joint connections have been developed in this study based on experimental results of 51 specimens. Fragility functions for two damage states, yielding and fracture, were generated to establish relationships between building response parameters, namely interstory drift ratio, and the level of damage experienced in the beam-column connection. The fragility functions presented in this study
CHAPTER 4
77
allow the incorporation of variability of deformation demands at which the two damage states may occur. For the case of yielding three different sets of fragility functions were developed. The first two fragility function employ a purely empirical approach in which the parameters of the fragility function are computed with a span-to-depth ratio that approximately represent those used in practice, or by using connection-specific span-todepth ratios. In the third fragility function uses a hybrid analytical-empirical approach in which an analytical estimate of the drift at yielding is first computed and is then modified to account for the bias and variability found using statistical information obtained between observed and analytical drifts at yield for each specimen. Both empirical and hybrid approaches indicate that the drift at which yielding is likely to occur increases with increasing span-to-depth ratios, therefore consideration of the span-to-depth ratio when estimating the likelihood of yielding does not only results in an improved estimate of the median drift but also in a smaller dispersion. For the specimens considered in this study analytical obtaining analytical predictions of the interstory drift at yield resulted in insignificant further reduction in dispersion for A36 specimens and in an increment in dispersion for A572 grade 50 specimens. For estimating the probability of fracture only the empirical approach was used. It was found that the drift at which fracture occurs decreases with increasing beam depths. For beam depths between 76 and 91 cm (30 and 36 inches), which are commonly used in practice in moment connections, median drifts that produce fracture in pre-Northridge welded beam-to-column connections are between 1.47% and 1.31%, respectively. Furthermore, the fragility functions developed in this study indicate that there is a probability between 70% and 80% that WSMF buildings with pre-Northridge connections experience fractures in their beam-to-column connections if they are subjected to interstory drift demands of 2%, which is the maximum allowed in current U.S. codes in the design level earthquake.
CHAPTER 4
78
CHAPTER 5
5 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPONENT FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FROM EMPIRICAL DATA

This chapter is based on the following publication: Ramirez, C.M., Cheong, K.F., Schrotenboer, T., and Miranda, E. (2008), Development of Empirical Fragility Functions in Support of the Story-based loss estimation toolbox, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report, (in preparation).
5.1 AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER

Ramirez aided with developing the models used for structural analysis, computed the fragility functions, and authored the publication. Cheong and Schrotenboer were
responsible for completing the analyses required to obtain the structural response parameters. Miranda served as advisor and principal investigator for this project.
5.2 INTRODUCTION
Quantifying structural performance in terms of economic loss induced by seismic ground motions requires estimating damage as a function of structural response. Fragility functions compute the probability of being in to or exceeding a given damage state or performance level as a function of a structural response parameter. Fragility functions need to be assigned to all components in a buildings inventory to estimate the damage and associated monetary loss that is representative of the entire value of the building. However, functions for every type of building component are currently not available. Most studies (see Chapter 2) on seismic-induced economic losses have ignored the loss due to components without fragilities or accounted for their loss only when the structure collapsed
CHAPTER 5
79
Development of Component Fragility Functions from Empirical Data
(Goulet et al. 2007). Other investigators (Aslani and Miranda, 2005) have estimated the loss in some of these components by using generic functions that were initially developed to be used in regional methods (HAZUS) for some of these components. The data used to develop these generic functions, however, are not well-documented and rely heavily on expert opinion that has yet to be validated. Failing to account for economic losses due to these types of components may lead to significant errors in the total estimated economic loss and inaccurate projections of the loss composition. Until fragilities are available for all building components, economic losses due to components without fragility functions need to be accounted for in a reliable manner. One way of accounting for these losses due to components without fragilities is using generic fragility functions. Generic fragility functions are fragilities that are not componentspecific, but rather estimate the damage of groups of building components that are of the same type. Components can be grouped into structural components and nonstructural components for loss assessment purposes. Building components that do not have fragility functions available can be grouped into these general categories and assigned these generic fragilities such that their damage can be estimated collectively. Although damage estimated from these functions may not be as precise as estimates generated from component-specific functions, it yields better economic loss assessments than if the damage due to these components is ignored. Many generic fragility functions that are currently available are based on motion damage relationships developed from expert opinion, such as those used in ATC-13 (ATC, 1985). Other functions, such as those used in HAZUS99 (FEMA, 1999), merge expert opinion with analytical results. Empirical data collected after earthquakes have been used to update these motion-damage relationships, however, the improvements made to these models have been limited by the lack of relevant building performance data collected (Anagnos et al., 1995, FEMA, 2000, Lizundia and Holmes, 1997). These empirical datasets have been hampered by a variety of deficiencies, which include: small sample sizes that do not provide enough data points, datasets that have a bias towards damaged or noteworthy buildings, datasets that are limited by the amount of building types that are included, datasets that are not collected in a consistent and complete manner, datasets that are collected by private companies and are not available to the public and datasets that include buildings that are not located close to free-field recording instruments (King et al., 2005).
CHAPTER 5
80
Recently, there have been efforts to improve the quality of empirical building performance data. The ATC-38 project (ATC, 2000) conducted after the 1994 Northridge earthquake attempted to systematically document the damage of buildings located near locations of strong ground motion recording stations. Engineers inspected more than 500 buildings located within 1000 feet of 30 strong motion recording stations. As a result, a thorough non-proprietary database now exists that includes the building properties and damage performance, photos, and strong motion recordings. Degenkolb Engineers (Heintz and Poland, 2001) also developed a similar database from an investigation conducted in Taiwan after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. King et al. (2005) developed motion-damage relationships using the ATC-38 project and other similar datasets to create lognormal fragility curves and damage probability matrices. Spectral acceleration and interstory drift ratio, the latter estimated by using spectral displacement and using a method proposed by Miranda (Miranda, 2000), were used as structural response parameters to develop these fragility functions. Unfortunately, these response parameters are based on single-degree of freedom systems that neglect the contribution of higher mode effects and assume the structure is first mode dominated. This may lead to inaccuracies in economic loss estimates for components that are damaged by floor accelerations (acceleration-sensitive components) because floor accelerations are strongly dependent on higher mode effects even in buildings with moderate heights. Even in a first mode dominated structure, the buildings roof acceleration could be 20% to 60% higher than the spectral acceleration because spectral acceleration is not equivalent to its peak floor accelerations. Additionally, King et al. (2005) computed both spectral accelerations and spectral displacements using approximations of the structural fundamental period used in US building codes (ICC, 2003) with parameters proposed by Goel and Chopra (1997). The equations used to approximate the fundamental period are not buildingspecific and may lead to inaccurate estimations of interstory drift ratios. This study is primarily aimed at obtaining generic fragility functions for nonstructural components where there is very scarce information. Of particular interest is to obtain information about the levels of structural response which trigger nonstructural damage since this information is particularly important when computing expected annualized losses (EALs). This study also attempts to improve the way empirical generic fragility functions are developed by capturing structural response using better response parameters and more advanced methods of structural simulation to estimate these parameters. Instead of using
CHAPTER 5 81 Development of Component Fragility Functions from Empirical Data
spectral acceleration and spectral displacement as response parameters, floor accelerations and interstory drift ratios computed from analyses that model multi-degree of freedom systems are used. Two sets of buildings that had damage data collected and documented after the 1994 Northridge earthquake were modeled. The first set of data was extracted from 19 instrumented buildings established the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP). The responses of these buildings were computed using a continuous model developed by Miranda (1999) that has been shown to approximate floor accelerations and interstory drift ratios relatively well (Miranda, 1999; Miranda and Taghavi, 2005). The response parameters computed from the continuous model were validated using the response data recorded by the accelerographs contained in these buildings. The second set of data was taken from the ATC-38 report (ATC, 2000). These buildings were not instrumented but because they were located close to ground motion recording stations, the ground motions recorded at these stations can be used in structural simulation to estimate what the peak structural response parameters were during this earthquake. A probabilistic approach using Monte Carlo simulation was used to obtain the most probable values of the response parameters. Once the response parameters were established, they were paired with the reported damage states for different groups of building components to create motiondamage pairs. The motion-damage pairs were used to create fragility functions. These fragility functions were then used to estimate damage for building components without component-specific fragilities in Chapter 3 of this dissertation to develop EDP-DV functions that relate structural response directly to monetary loss and used as part of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) centers loss estimation toolbox, detailed in Chapter 6.
5.3 SOURCES OF EMPIRICAL DATA

5.3.1 Instrumented Buildings (CSMIP) The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) was established in 1972 to gather seismic activity data by instituting a network of accelerographs throughout the state. The network includes 170 instrumented buildings, 19 of which have damage documented during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. For every building, a brief description of the structure was provided which included several structural characteristics. A summary
CHAPTER 5
82
of these building properties is listed in Table 5.1. These characteristics included the buildings number of stories, occupancy type and type of lateral force resisting system. The buildings location in terms of latitude and longitude is reported and in particular its distance to the earthquakes epicenter. Sensors are located throughout each building on the ground floor and selected floors above ground. Each sensor recorded accelerations during the Northridge earthquake.
Table 5.1 CSMIP Building Properties

Station ID 24231 24231 24236 24236 24322 24322 24332 24332 24370 24370 24385 24385 24386 24386 24463 24463 24464 24464 24514 24514 24579 24579 24580 24580 24601 24601 24602 24602 24605 24605 24629 24629 24643 24643 24652 24652 24655 24655 No. of Stories 7 7 14 14 13 13 3 3 6 6 10 10 7 7 5 5 20 20 6 6 9 9 2 2 17 17 52 52 7 7 54 54 19 19 6 6 6 6 Lateral Dist. To Interstory EQ Resisting Occupancy Type Epicenter Period [s] Ht. [cm] Direction System [km] Steel MRF School 18 411 EW 1.10 Steel MRF School 18 411 NS 0.62 Rconcrete MRF Warehouse 23 320 EW 0.81 Rconcrete MRF Warehouse 23 320 NS 2.30 Rconcrete MRF Commercial 9 358 EW 2.92 Rconcrete MRF Commercial 9 358 NS 2.60 Shear Walls Commercial 20 508 EW 0.48 Shear Walls Commercial 20 508 NS 0.59 SMRF Commercial 22 396 EW 1.39 SMRF Commercial 22 396 NS 1.38 Shear Walls Residential 21 207 EW 0.59 Shear Walls Residential 21 207 NS 0.60 Rconcrete MRF Hotel 7 265 EW 1.98 Rconcrete MRF Hotel 7 265 NS 1.60 Rconcrete MRF Warehouse 36 725 EW 1.45 Rconcrete MRF Warehouse 36 725 NS 1.62 Rconcrete MRF Hotel 19 257 EW 2.60 Rconcrete MRF Hotel 19 257 NS 2.79 Shear Walls Hospital 16 472 EW 0.30 Shear Walls Hospital 16 472 NS 0.37 Rconcrete MRF Office Building 32 396 EW 1.29 Rconcrete MRF Office Building 32 396 NS 1.04 Base Isolation Office Building 38 NA NA NA Base Isolation Office Building 38 NA NA NA Shear Walls Residential 32 264 EW 1.08 Shear Walls Residential 32 264 NS 1.14 Steel MRF Office Building 31 396 EW 6.20 Steel MRF Office Building 31 396 NS 5.90 Base Isolation Hospital 36 NA NA NA Base Isolation Hospital 36 NA NA NA Steel MRF Office Building 32 396 EW 5.60 Steel MRF Office Building 32 396 NS 6.20 Steel MRF Office Building 20 406 EW 3.90 Steel MRF Office Building 20 406 NS 3.47 Steel MRF Office Building 31 427 EW 0.91 Steel MRF Office Building 31 427 NS 0.86 Steel MRF Parking Structure 31 305 EW 0.40 Steel MRF Parking Structure 31 305 NS 0.51 Alpha 4.1 7.0 8.5 5.0 29.5 19.1 6.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.0 2.0 8.9 5.0 10.2 15.5 9.1 29.0 3.5 3.0 4.1 29.5 NA NA 1.8 1.5 6.9 9.8 NA NA 30.0 27.5 30.0 4.0 30.0 13.0 1.4 2.0 Damping Ratio 0.054 0.100 0.088 0.075 0.050 0.090 0.035 0.050 0.040 0.029 0.055 0.059 0.130 0.130 0.037 0.035 0.050 0.030 0.180 0.180 0.053 0.050 NA NA 0.033 0.036 0.015 0.010 NA NA 0.005 0.009 0.021 0.026 0.049 0.032 0.067 0.102
The damage collected for each building used the criteria established by ATC-13 (ATC, 1985). Overall damage for the entire building was reported using the following damage states: none, insignificant, moderate and heavy. These damage states are defined in Table 5.2. In addition to the reporting the buildings overall damage, damage to specific
components of the structure was evaluated. Damage experienced by the buildings structural components, its nonstructural components, its equipment and its contents were also documented. Seven damage states, defined in Table 5.3, for each sub-category was used to measure the performance of each component group. The economic loss associated with each damage state was expressed as a percentage of the replacement cost of the group of components.
Table 5.2 General Damage Classifications (ATC-13, 1985)

Code Description None . No damage is visible, either structural or non-structural Insignificant. Damage requires no more than cosmetic repair. No structural repairs are necessary. For non-structural elements this would include spackling partition cracks, picking up spilled contents, putting back fallen ceiling tiles, and righting equipement. Moderate. Repairable structural damage has occurred. The existing elements can be repaired in place, without substantial demolition or replacement or elements. For non-structural elements this would include minor replacement of damaged partitions, ceilings, contents or equipment. Heavy. Damage is so extensive that repair of elements is either not feasible or requires major demolition or replacement. For non-structural elements this would include major or complete replacement of damaged partitions, ceilings, contents or equipment.
N I
Table 5.3 ATC-13 Damages States (ATC, 1985)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description None Slight Light Moderate Heavy Major Destroyed Percent Damage 0% 0% - 1% 1% - 10% 10% - 30% 30% - 60% 60% - 100% 100%
5.3.2
Buildings surveyed in the ATC-38 Report ATC-38 was conducted to collect data that would improve motion-damage
relationships for earthquake damage and loss modeling. During the days after the 1994 Northridge earthquake the Applied Technology Council (ATC), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other Northern California organizations concerned with
earthquake engineering systematically documented building performance of structures located within 300 meters (~1000 feet) of strong ground motion recording stations. 530 buildings near 31 recording stations were surveyed during the study. Eighteen of the stations are operated by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 7 are operated by the University of Southern California (USC), and 6 are operated by USGS. Digitized strong motion recordings were collected. Standardized survey forms were used to evaluate the buildings and collect key information. The buildings were categorized by their occupancy type as reported in Table 5.4. Photographs were taken to document the size, shape and visible damage. The survey documented important structural characteristics for each building such as its design date, predominant structural framing type (as defined by ATC, see Table 5.5), occupancy type and number stories. The buildings nonstructural characteristics, equipment and contents were also recorded. Building performance was evaluated by recording the degree of damage experienced by the structural system, nonstructural components, equipment and contents. Damage was measured using the same criteria established by ATC-13 and used for the instrumented buildings described in Section 5.3.1.
Table 5.4 Occupancy Types and Codes (ATC-38)

Occupancy Type Apartment Auto Repair Church Dwelling Data Center Garage Gas Station Government Hospital Hotel Manufacturing Office Restaurant Retail School Theater Utility Warehouse Other Unknown Refence Code A AR C D DC G GS GV H HL M O R RS S T U W OTH UNK
CHAPTER 5
85
Table 5.5 Model Building Types (ATC-38)

Framing System Steel Moment Frame Steel Braced Frame Steel Light Frame Steel Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls Steel Frame w/ Infill Masonry Shear Walls Concrete Moment Frame Concrete Shear Wall Building Concrete Frame w/ Infill Masonry Shear Walls Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Precast/Tiltup Concrete Shear Walls Precast Concrete Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls Wood Light Frame Commercial or Long-Span Wood Frame Reference Codes and Diaphragm Types S1 - Stiff Diaphragms S1A - Flexible Diaphragms S2 - Stiff Diaphragms S2A - Flexible Diaphragms S3 S4 - Stiff Diaphragms S4A - Flexible Diaphragms S5 - Stiff Diaphragms S5A - Flexible Diaphragms C1 - Stiff Diaphragms C1A - Flexible Diaphragms C2 - Stiff Diaphragms C2A - Flexible Diaphragms C3 - Stiff Diaphragms C3A - Flexible Diaphragms RM1 - Flexible Diaphragms RM2 - Stiff Diaphragms URM - Flexible Diaphragms URMA - Stiff Diaphragms PC1 - Flexible Diaphragms PC1A - Stiff Diaphragms PC2 W1 W2
5.4 DATA FROM INSTRUMENTED BUILDINGS

5.4.1 Structural response simulation The response parameters being considered in this study to create fragility functions are listed and defined as the following: Peak Building Acceleration (PBA): The maximum acceleration experienced by the building at any floor during the earthquake. Peak Interstory Drift (IDR): The maximum interstory drift experienced by the building at any story during the earthquake These response parameters are also often referred to as engineering demand parameters (EDPs) under the terminology established by PEER for their performance-based earthquake engineering framework (Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004). Calculating these parameters requires knowing what the maximum displacements and accelerations are for every floor of each building. The sensors for each CSMIP building were not located at every floor. Therefore, approximate methods of structural analysis were used to evaluate the buildings response at the intermediate floors that did not have any motion recordings. Taghavi and Miranda (2005) have shown that in many cases it is possible to obtain a relatively good approximation of the response of buildings subjected to earthquake ground motions. In their model, the building is replaced by a continuous system consisting of a shear beam laterally connected to a flexural beam by axially ridge struts (Figure 5.1). The continuous systems primary advantage is that it requires only three parameters to calculate
the dynamic properties of the structure: the buildings fundamental period of vibration, its damping ratio and a non-dimensional parameter,
0,
which controls the degree of flexural
or shear deformation. Closed-form solutions solving the dynamic equation of motion for the continuous system were derived that compute the considered buildings mode shapes, its corresponding modal participation factors and period ratio. Once the considered structures dynamic characteristics have been determined, they can be used in combination with traditional time-integration schemes to evaluate the structural response when subjected to seismic ground accelerations.
Flexural beam
Shear beam
Axially-rigid links
Figure 5.1 Continuous Model used to evaluate structural response
The distribution of the building mass and stiffness was assumed to be uniform along the height of the structure. Although making this assumption may seem restrictive, Miranda and Taghavi (2005) have shown that, provided that there are no large sudden changes in mass or stiffness along the height, this model leads to reasonable approximations of the dynamic characteristics of many types of buildings. Any deviation in response that was produced by nonuniform mass or stiffness, was small enough to neglect or could be accounted for by using approximate equations. The continuous model has been shown to have produced similar structural responses for structures responding elastically that were predicted by more rigorous models that required greater computational effort. Furthermore, by using the buildings
CHAPTER 5
87
fundamental period, damping ratio and nondimensional parameter
0,
inferred using system
identification techniques, the model was able to produce results that showed good agreement with the structural response data recorded by the instrumented floors. A representative example is shown in Figure 5.2. The last three columns of Table 5.1 list the inferred parameters for each building.
Figure 5.2 Example of Simulated Structural Response compared to Recorded Response
CHAPTER 5
88
Detailed summary sheets comparing how well each of the 19 instrumented buildings simulated response matched its recorded response were complied. The computed peak floor acceleration, the floor acceleration spectra, the floor acceleration and displacement response histories are compared to those recorded by the buildings sensors. An example of the type of data reported is shown in Figure 5.3.
CHAPTER 5
89
Figure 5.3 CSMIP Building Response Comparison Summary Sheet Layout
CHAPTER 5
90
Figure 5.3 CSMIP Building Response Comparison Summary Sheet Layout (cont.)
CHAPTER 5
91
5.4.2
Motion-damage pairs for each building Summary sheets were assembled to consolidate all the structural response and
damage information gathered for each of the 19 instrumented CSMIP buildings included in this study. Figure 5.4 illustrates an example of the type of data generated for each building. The example building shown is a 17 story shear wall residential building. General building characteristics (e.g. number of stories, type of lateral resisting system, occupancy typeetc) and a summary of the reported damage are documented. A map showing the locations of the sensors in each building and plots of peak response parameters, similar to those shown in Figure 5.2, are also reported in the summary sheets.
CHAPTER 5
92
Figure 5.4 CSMIP Building Summary Sheet Layout
CHAPTER 5
93
Figure 5.4 CSMIP Building Summary Sheet Layout (cont.)
CHAPTER 5
94
5.5 DATA FROM ATC-38

5.5.1 Structural response simulation Unlike the CSMIP buildings in the previous section, the actual structural response was not recorded in buildings surveyed by ATC-38 and therefore is not known. The ground motion accelerations for each specific building is also not known. However, because the buildings in the ATC-38 report are located in close proximity to ground motion recording stations, the ground motion accelerations for these structures are assumed to be the same as those recorded at the nearby stations. By making this assumption, the ground motion recordings were used to estimate the probable structural response during the 1994 Northridge earthquake by using simplified structural analyses of all 500 buildings. Most of the buildings surveyed in ATC-38 were 5 stories or less. For low-rise buildings the continuous model, used to model the CSMIP building, does not do as well in simulating response parameters. This is because the distribution of mass along the height of a building is much more discrete in low-rise buildings, than it is in taller structures. Instead of using the continuous model described in Section 5.4.1, a more traditional discrete, linear model was used to simulate the structural response. The discrete model consisted of a two dimensional linear one-bay frame with lumped mass at the floor heights. Assuming a linearly elastic model to estimate the response parameters of these buildings in this study was deemed reasonable because the ground motion intensities observed during this earthquake were, for the most part, not large enough to induce inelastic behavior in the majority of these structures. The model was assumed to have uniform mass and uniform stiffness throughout the height of the structure. Like the continuous model, this approach uses the same three parameters (the buildings fundamental period, its damping ratio and the nondimensional parameter,
0)
to calculate the discrete models dynamic properties.
The dynamic properties were calculated by assembling a stiffness and mass matrix for a uniform, one bay frame and solving the resulting eigenvalue problem. Once the dynamic properties were established, the model was subjected to the recorded ground motion from the nearby recording station. The response was calculated by using Newmarks timeintegration algorithm in combination with modal superposition to solve the equations of motion for the multi-degree-of-freedom problem.
CHAPTER 5
95
The fundamental period, damping ratio and nondimensional parameter
for each
building reported in ATC-38 is not known because the buildings were not instrumented. Therefore, instead of computing only one solution through a deterministic approach, a probabilistic method of estimating each buildings structure properties and corresponding response was used to account for modeling uncertainty. Each buildings fundamental period, damping ratio and parameter
0
were treated as independent random variables that
were lognormally distributed. A lognormal distribution was assumed because realizations of this distribution can not be less than or equal to zero and some studies have shown to be appropriate for the fundamental period and damping ratios. The median and dispersion of each random variable were estimated using formulas determined for twelve general model building types, shown in Table 5.6. After defining these probability distributions, Monte Carlo methods were used to generate 200 different realizations with combinations of the random variables. Each combination of building parameters was used together with an assumed interstory height (also found in Table 5.6) as input to define the discrete model. A time history analysis was conducted using the nearby recorded ground motion to simulate the buildings response in terms of the parameters defined in Section 5.4.1. Statistical analysis was then conducted on the results of the 200 simulations to establish the median (50th percentile) and dispersion (15th and 85th percentiles) of the simulations. The response was computed for each directional component of the recorded ground acceleration producing response results in both component directions. In order to find a numerical average for the predicted motions, the geometric mean was calculated from the two component directions. Figure 5.5 displays an example of the results for the simulated structural response of one of the ATC-38 buildings. Each graph plots the three response parameters along the height of the building and displays the results of all 200 simulations, with the 15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles highlighted
CHAPTER 5
96
Table 5.6 Formulas used for Estimating Structural Building Parameters

Predominant MBT Typical Interstory
Code Description
Period
Median, Dispersion Parameter,
Alpha
Damping Ratio
Height [ft]
T1
0.035H 0.805
T1
S1, S1A S2, S2A S3 S4, S4A S5, S5A RM1, RM2, URM, URMA C1, C1A C2, C2A C3, C3A PC1, PC1A W1
Steel Moment Resisting Frame Steel Brace Frame Steel Light Frame Steel Frame w/
13.75
0.3
25
0.2
0.1057NS -0.565
0.40
13.75 13.0 13.75
0.017H 0.9 0.038H 0.8 0.017H 0.9
0.3 0.3 0.3
6 20 10
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.03 0.1057NS -0.565 0.03
0.35 0.35 0.35
Concrete Shear Walls Steel Frame w/ Infill Masonry Shear Wall
13.75
0.023H 0.85
0.3
18
0.2
0.04
0.35
Masonry Buildings
12.0
0.017H
0.3
0.2
0.278NS -0.701
0.20
RC Moment Resisting Frame Concrete Shear Wall
9.0 res., hotel 13.8 other 12.45
0.017H 0.92
0.3
25
0.2
0.0889NS -0.235
0.20
0.0069H
0.3
0.2
0.0889NS -0.235
0.30
Concrete
Frame
w/
Infill Masonry Shear Wall Precast/Tiltup Concrete Shear Wall Wood Light Frame
9.0 res., hotel 13.8 other
0.015H 0.9
0.3
18
0.2
0.09NS -0.24
0.25
16.0
0.007H
0.3
0.2
0.06
0.30
Buildings Commercial Wood Buildings
10.0
0.032H 0.55
0.3
0.2
0.077
0.40
W2
Frame (Longspan)
13.4
0.032H 0.55
0.3
15
0.2
0.077
0.40
NOTE:
H = height of building [ft] ( = typical interstory height [ft] * number of stories ) NS = number of stories above ground
CHAPTER 5
97
Building Response when Subjected to USGS080 - Comp 270

4 3 4
1 0
1 2 Peak Displacement [cm]
1 0
1 2 Peak IDR
3 x 10
-3
1 0 500 1000 Peak Floor Acceleration [cm/s.2]
Building Response when Subjected to USGS080 - Comp 360

4 3 4
3
Floor
1 0
0.5 1 1.5 Peak Displacement [cm]
1 0
1 Peak IDR
2 x 10
-3
1 0 500 1000 Peak Floor Acceleration [cm/s.2]
Figure 5.5 Example of Results from Simulated Structural Response.
5.5.2
Motion-damage pairs for each building The following summary sheets were assembled to consolidate all the structural
response and damage information gathered for each of the buildings from the ATC-38 report included in this study. Figure 5.6 illustrates how the information on each building summary is laid out. General building characteristics and the assumed median and dispersions of the buildings structural properties were reported. Figures showing peak response parameters along the height of the building and tables summarizing the peak
response values, for each direction of ground motion component and the geometric mean of the two components, are also documented. Lastly, a summary of the reported damage is tabulated for both general damage and nonstructural damage of specific components.
CHAPTER 5
99
Figure 5.6 ATC-38 Building Summary Sheet Layout
CHAPTER 5
100
Figure 5.6 ATC-38 Building Summary Sheet Layout (cont.)
CHAPTER 5
101
5.6 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FORMULATION

5.6.1 Procedures to compute fragility functions The values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) at which the structures exceed particular damage states can significantly vary from building to building. This variability can be accounted for using cumulative distribution functions (cdf) to approximate the likelihood of each damage state occurring. These functions, termed fragility functions, approximate the probability that building components will experience or exceed a particular damage state given its structural response (expressed as one of the two EDPs defined in Section 5.4.1). The motion-damage pairs were separated into the different types of damage reported from the CSMIP and ATC-38 reports. For each type of damage (e.g. general damage, structural damage, nonstructural damageetc.), cumulative frequency distribution functions were developed for each damage state that was observed in the dataset. The probability of experiencing or exceeding a particular damage state conditioned on a particular value of EDP, P( DS
ds j EDP
edp) , is modeled using a lognormal
probability distribution, F (edp ) , given by the following equation:
F (edp)
P( DS
ds j EDP
edp)
Ln(edp) Ln( EDP)

LnEDP
(5.1)
where P(DS
dsj EDP = EDP) is the probability of experiencing or exceeding damage

LnEDP
state j, EDP is the median of the EDPs at which damage state j was observed, standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the EDPs, and normal distribution (Gaussian distribution).
is the
is the cumulative standard
A lognormal distribution is chosen because it has been shown that it fits damage data well for both structural components and nonstructural components (Porter and Kiremidjian 2001, Aslani and Miranda 2005, Pagni and Lowes 2006). Theoretically, the lognormal distribution is ideal because it equals zero probability for values of EDP that are
CHAPTER 5
102
less than or equal to zero. The lognormal distribution also can be completely defined by two parameters: the median EDP ,and the lognormal standard deviation,
LnEDP.
Three different
methods were used to determine the statistical parameters of the lognormal distribution for the fragility functions produced in this investigation: (1) the least squares method, (2) the maximum likelihood method, and (3) the second method (Method B) for bounding EDPs as proposed by Porter et al. (2007).
5.6.1.1 Least squares method The least squares method is a common statistical approach that attempts to fit observed data to the values produced by a predicting function. This is accomplished by minimizing the sum of the square of the differences between the observed data and the values, g edp , predicted by the proposed function, F edp . Mathematically, this can be expressed as:
g edp1 ,..., edp N
min
i 1
F edpi
DS j edpi
(5.2)
where N is the number of data points, EDPi is the peak EDP observed for data point i, and DSj(EDPi) indicates whether damage state j has been exceeded by taking on a binary value of 1 when the damage state has been exceeded and 0 when the damage state has not occurred. Figure 5.7 illustrates this procedure for damage state DS2 of drift-sensitive nonstructural components based on the CSMIP data. The parameters EDP and varied until the sum of the distances F edpi
LnEDP
are
DS j edpi
is minimized. The Solver until a minimum value of
function in MS EXCEL was used to vary EDP and
LnEDP,
g edp was found.
CHAPTER 5
103
P(DS2 | IDR)
1.00
0.80
0.60
F edpi
0.40
DS j edpi
0.20
Predicted Value Observed value
0.00 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
IDR Figure 5.7 Difference between observed values and values predicted by a lognormal distribution for damage state DS2 of drift-sensitive nonstructural components based on data from CSMIP.
5.6.1.2 Maximum likelihood method In the method of maximum likelihood (Rice, 2007), it is assumed that each realization dsi of the random variable DS is a sampled outcome of separate random variables DSi (i.e. instead of regarding ds1, ds2,, dsN as N realizations of the random variable DS, each outcome dsi is a realization of DSi). The joint probability density function (PDF) conditioned on the parameters of the lognormal distribution, g(ds1, ds2,, dsN |
EDP ,
LnEDP ),
is defined as the likelihood function such that:
L EDP,
LnEDP
g ds1 , ds2 ,..., dsn EDP ,
LnEDP
(5.3)
where L( ) is the likelihood operator, the joint density is a function of EDP and
LnEDP
rather than a function of dsi. If DSi are assumed to be identically distributed and independent random variables, then their PDF is the product of the marginal densities such that equation (5.3) becomes
CHAPTER 5
104
L EDP,
LnEDP i
g dsi EDP ,
LnEDP
(5.4)
The values of EDP and
LnEDP
that maximizes the likelihood function that is, the values
that make the observing the damage state DS most probable are the values that are selected to define the parameters of fragility functions. Since our damage states are discrete and binary (i.e. either the damage state has occurred or not occurred), it is assumed that each DSi observation is an ordinary Bernoulli random variable, where:
P DSi P DSi
1 EDP
edpi
F edpi 1 F edpi
0 EDP edpi
such that its probability distribution can be represented as:
g dsi EDP,
LnEDP
F edpi
DS i
1 F edpi
1 DSi
(5.5)
Substituting equation (5.5) into (5.4), our likelihood function becomes:
L EDP,
LnEDP i
F edpi
DSi
1 F edpi
1 DSi
(5.6)
where F(EDPi) is the lognormal cdf as defined in equation (5.1) defined by the parameters
EDP and
LnEDP.
As was the case when using the least squares method, the MS EXCEL
solver tool was used to find the maximum value of equation (5.6) by varying the two parameters of the lognormal distribution.
CHAPTER 5
105
5.6.1.3 Bounding EDPs method (Porter et al. 2001, Method B) The bounding EDPs method determines the probability of a damage state occurring from observed data, by dividing the data set into discrete bins based on equal increments of EDPs as shown in Figure 5.8. For each subset of data in every bin, the probability of damage state DS occurring is calculated in each bin, according to:
P DS 1 EDP
edpi
m M
(5.7)
where m is number of data points that experienced this level of damage and M is the total number of data points within the bin being considered. These probabilities are then plotted at the midpoints of the EDP ranges in each bin as shown by the hollow points in Figure 5.8. A lognormal distribution is then fitted to these points by varying the parameters EDP and
LnEDP .
The interested reader is directed to Porter et al. (2007) for more information
regarding this procedure for developing fragility functions.
P(DS2 | PBA)
1.00
0.80 Bin Size
0.60
0.40
Observed Data Ratio of DS=1 per Bin Fitted function
0.20
0.00 0 500 1000 1500

2
2000
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.8 Developing fragility functions using the bounding EDPs method.
CHAPTER 5
106
5.6.2
Limitations of fragility function procedures How robust the methods were in finding reliable parameters was dependent on the
data available. The three different methods were used to formulate fragility functions because each of the methods had limitations in their ability to find reliable solutions for the parameters of the lognormal distribution given the available data. In cases where one method was not able to find a solution that was reliable, the other methods were used to determine the values of EDP and confirm that estimates of EDP and
LnEDP. LnEDP
Having several methods was necessary to obtained were fairly accurate based on the
available data extracted from the CSMIP and ATC-38 buildings. There were situations where the available data made finding unique solutions for
EDP and
LnEDP
using the least squares and the maximum likelihood methods impossible.
For instance, finding unique solutions was impossible when the range of EDPs for the buildings that experienced damage state DSj did not overlap with the range of EDPs for the buildings that did not experience this level of damage. This situation is illustrated Figure 5.9(a) which shows the fragility function for DS5 of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components derived from the CSMIP data. The range of EDPs that do not experience damage ends at a PBA value of 1080 cm/s2, while the range of EDPs that experience DS5 begins at a PBA of 1550 cm/s2. For a given value of EDP , there can be multiple values of
LnEDP
that will yield a fitted lognormal distribution that passes through all the data points.
This is shown in Figure 5.9(a) for an assumed EDP value of 1,315 cm/s2 (the midpoint between the bounding data points with PBA values of 1,080 and 1,550 cm/s2) where the range of possible solutions for the fitted functions is represented in the bounded area with the diagonally striped hatching. Similarly, for a very small value of
LnEDP,
such that the
fitted function is almost vertical, EDP can take on any value between 1,080 and 1,550 cm/s2 and still yield a lognormal distribution that pass through all the data points as shown in Figure 5.9(a). Under these circumstances, it was decided that EDP would be taken to be the midpoint of the bounding EDP data points. The associate dispersion,
LnEDP,
would be
chosen as the largest value that would still produce a fitted function that passes through all the data points.
CHAPTER 5
107
P(DS5 | PBA)
1.00
(a)
P(DS4 | PBA)
1.00
Observed Data
(b)
0.80
Range of possible values of EDP
0.80
4 bins 3 bins
0.60 Area in which possible fitted functions can vary within
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00 0 500 1000 1500

2
0.00
2000
500
1000
1500
2
2000
PBA [cm/s ]
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.9 Limitations of finding unique solutions for fragility function parameters (a) multiple solutions for least squares and maximum likelikhood methods (b) multiple solutions for bounded EDPs method.
The bounded EDPs method can also produce multiple solutions for estimated fragility function parameters. The plotting position of the points that are used to fit the lognormal distribution are highly dependent on number of data points and the distribution of those points along the range of EDPs. Porter et al. (2007) suggests that this method works best for data sets containing greater than 25 data points. The number of data points and their distribution are important because the size and number of bins can be chosen subjectively and consequently can change the resulting fitted functions. Figure 5.9(b) shows the damage state DS4 for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components that plots data from the CSMIP buildings. The same data was used to derive fragility functions using 4 bins (solid line) and 3 bins (dashed line), yielding two very different probability distributions. Typically, when confronted with different functions produced by selecting different bin sizes, the function chosen was the one that was most similar to those produced by the other methods. For the most part, good agreement was shown between the three methods as shown in Figure 5.10(a) for the DS2 damage state of drift-sensitive nonstructural components. In instances where two of the methods showed good agreement and one did not, the parameters from the methods that displayed closer results were used to define the fragility function. An example of this is shown in Figure 5.10(b) for the DS 2 damage state of drift-
CHAPTER 5
108
sensitive structural components. The maximum likelihood and least squares methods typically produced similar results because their solution algorithms are very similar, whereas the results from the bounded EDPs method were dependent on the number bins used. In cases where none of the methods showed any agreement, the one of functions produced from either the least squares or the maximum likelihood was chosen because these methods do not introduce the same level of subjectivity as the bounded EDP method (which was shown to be highly depended on the bin size). The choice between the fragility produced by least squares and the fragility derived from maximum likelihood was based on which method yielded a definite unique solution or which function made more engineering sense based on previous data from other fragility functions previously derived from experimental data.
P(DS2 | IDR)
1.00
(a) Nonstructural components
P(DS2 | IDR)
1.00
(b) Structural components
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
Least Squares
0.40
Least Squares
0.20
Max Likelihood Porter Method B
0.20
Max Likelihood Porter Method B
0.00 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
0.00 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
IDR
IDR
Figure 5.10 Sample comparisons of different methods to formulate fragility functions (a) example of all three methods agreeing (b) example of 2 out of 3 methods agreeing.
5.6.3
Adjustments to fragility function parameters Once the parameters for the fragility functions were established using the
procedures presented in the previous sections the results were examined to see if the resulting distributions were reasonable. Although the fragilities were based on actual empirical data from earthquake reconnaissance, the motion-damage pairs have limitations
CHAPTER 5
109
that may produce results that become problematic when estimating damage. These limitations include the following: The motion-damage pairs generated from the ATC-38 buildings are based on probabilistic response simulation results and not based on the actual structural response. Although the motion-damage pairs from the CSMIP buildings are derived from recorded response data, the sample size of this set is relatively small (19 data points) The both sets of data have limited information on the more severe damage states because only a very limited number of buildings suffered these high levels of damage. Both sets of data rely on subjective interpretations of damage states, by the engineers who assessed the damage to each building. Given these limitations, some of the resulting fragility functions, particularly for certain damages states where data is scarce, needed to be adjusted after their parameters have been computed. Functions were adjusted based on the level confidence in how well the resulting probability distribution represented the actual behavior. The level of confidence in the distributions computed was highly dependent on both the total number of data points that were used to generate the functions and the number of points that exceeded a particular damage state. Figure 5.11 shows an example set of fragility functions that illustrate the types of adjustments that were made to the parameters EDP and
LnEDP.
This set of
functions is for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components based on data from the CSMIP buildings. The example functions computed directly from the data using the procedures described in the preceding sections are shown in Figure 5.11(a) and their corresponding parameters are listed in Table 5.7. It can be observed that for large accelerations (>1,300 cm/s2) that these functions estimate that the probability of the damage state DS5 (Heavy damage) occurring, is higher than the probability of DS3 (Light damage) or DS4 (Moderate damage), which, by definition of the damage states, is impossible and problematic when estimating economic losses. Examining the data used to compute the fragility for DS5 closer (as illustrated in Figure 5.9) reveals that this function was based only one building experiencing damage that
exceeded this damage state. Consequently, no unique solution exists to define this function using the least squares or maximum likelihood method based on this dataset (as described in detail previously in 5.6.2). Since this function was formulated based on only one data point, the level of confidence in this probability distribution representing the actual behavior is not high and adjustments to its parameters is required to obtain more realistic loss estimation results. Similar observations can be made about the functions for DS3 and DS4 which are only based on four data points and two data points experiencing or exceeding this damage state, respectively.
P(DS | PBA)
1.00
(a)
P(DS | PBA)
1.00
(b)
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
DS 2: Slight DS 3: Light DS 4: Moderate DS 5: Heavy
0.20
0.20
0.00 0 500 1000 1500

2
0.00 2000 0 500 1000 1500

2
2000
PBA [cm/s ]
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.11 (a) Sample fragility functions computed from data for accleration nonstructral components (from CSMIP) (b) Sample functions after adjustments.
Table 5.7 Parameters for sample fragility functions computed directly and with adjustments from data for accleration nonstructral components (from CSMIP).
Nonstructural | PBA (CSMIP) Unadjusted Adjusted
Geometric Mean LN Standard Deviation Geometric Mean LN Standard Deviation
Damage State DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5
387 995 1202 1300
0.52 0.80 0.42 0.07
387 995 1202 1300
0.52 0.50 0.36 0.30
CHAPTER 5
111
The adjusted fragility functions are shown in Figure 5.11(b) and their corresponding parameters are shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 5.7. Only minor adjustments were made to the lognormal standard deviations of DS3 and DS5 because the confidence in these results was not that high based on the limited number of data points that experienced or exceeded these damage states. The lognormal standard deviation of DS3 was decreased from 0.80 to 0.50. It has been observed from previous studies (Aslani and Miranda, 2005) on fragility functions derived from experimental data that lognormal standard deviations for more severe damage states tend to be less than or equal to the dispersion values of the damage states that preceded them. In this example, the lognormal value of DS3 was adjusted to 0.50 because the lognormal standard deviation of the preceding damage state, DS2, is 0.52. Increasing the lognormal standard deviation of DS5 from 0.07 to 0.3 was rationalized by noting that the value of
LnEDP
for this function was dictated by only one
data point as shown in Figure 5.9(a) at a PBA of 1550 cm/s2. This building was the only one of the CSMIP structures that exceeded DS5, and for the fitted function to pass through this point, a very small value of
LnEDP
was estimated for this distribution. Because the
parameters of this function are not based on several data points, it is not as reliable as other damage states which have more observations that indicate damage was sustained. Therefore the dispersion was increased to a more realistic value. This type of rationale was used to make similar adjustments to the other fragility functions computed in this study.
5.7 FRAGILITY FUNCTION RESULTS

Three types of fragility functions were developed using the methods described in the previous sections. Functions that estimate the probability of experiencing structural damage conditioned on peak IDR, the probability of experiencing nonstructural damage conditioned on peak IDR, and the probability of experiencing nonstructural damage conditioned on PBA were produced. Figure 5.12 shows the functions for the three types of fragilities that were computed from the CSMIP data. The corresponding statistical parameters for these functions are reported in Table 5.8.
CHAPTER 5
112
P(DS | IDR)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
(a)
0.02
IDR
P(DS | IDR)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
(b)
P(DS | PBA)
1.00
(c)
0.80
0.60
0.40
DS 2: Slight DS 3: Light DS 4: Moderate DS 5: Heavy
0.20
0.00
0.02
500
1000
1500
2
2000
IDR
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.12 CSMIP Fragility Functions for (a) Structural Damage vs. IDR (b) Nonstructural Damage vs. IDR and (c) Nonstructural vs. PBA.
The value of EDPs at which damage initiates is of particular interest because it can play a large role in computing the value expected annual loss (EAL). Expected annual loss is the average economic loss that is expected to accrue every year in the building being considered. It is a function of the expected economic losses as a function of seismic intensity and the mean annual frequency of seismic ground motion intensity. The frequency of occurrence for small ground motion intensities (intensity levels at which damage initiates) is very high and has been shown to significantly contribute to value of EAL (Aslani and Miranda, 2005). Therefore, to estimate EAL accurately, it is important that the function of the first damage state does a relatively good job in capturing when damage initiates.
CHAPTER 5
113
Table 5.8 Fragility Function Parameters generated from the CSMIP data.
CSMIP Nonstructural | IDR
Median LN Standard Deviation
Damage State DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5
Structural | IDR
Nonstructural | PBA [cm/s ]

0.012 0.015
0.30 0.30
0.003 0.011 0.016
0.32 0.30 0.30
387 995 1202 1300
0.52 0.50 0.36 0.30
The CSMIP functions for drift-sensitive structural components are shown in Figure 5.12(a). This figure does not include the function for the DS2 damage state for slight damage because the level of damage associated with this damage state is very small. Structural damage at this level is typically too small to warrant any repair actions and therefore is excluded from the results presented here. The first damage state of consequence is DS3 (light damage), which represents a damage associated with 1-10% of the replacement cost, has a median of IDR of 0.012 and a lognormal standard deviation of 0.30. This value is in the same range of other fragility functions for structural components that were computed using experimental data (see Chapter 4, Pagni and Lowes 2006). To compare values of structural response that initiates damage, damage initiation is assumed to occur at the level of EDP that results in a probability of experiencing or exceeding the first level of damage of consequence equal to 1%. Using this criteria, the resulting value of IDR at which damage initiates of structural components occurs at 0.006. Figure 5.12(a) and Figure 5.12(b) show the resulting fragility functions for driftsensitive and acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components, respectively. These functions are of particular interest because nonstructural components make up a large portion of a buildings value and consequently can play a large role in economic losses due to earthquake ground motions (Taghavi and Miranda, 2003). The median IDR and lognormal standard deviation for the first damage state (DS2: Slight) of drift-sensitive components are 0.0030 and 0.30, respectively. According the criteria assumed in the previous paragraph, this function estimates that damage initiates at an IDR of approximately 0.0014. These parameters are in the same range of as other component-specific fragility functions that have been computed from experimental data. For instance, the median IDR for the first damage state of partitions has been previously computed to be 0.0021 by the ATC-58 project (ATC, 2007).
For acceleration-sensitive components, the median PBA and lognormal standard deviation of the first damage state are 387 cm/s2 (0.39g) and 0.52, respectively. For this function, damage initiates at an acceleration equal to 116 cm/s2 (0.12g). The functions for the first damage state for both drift and accelerations sensitive occur at much earlier EDP values than the other damage states. This may be primarily due the fact that minor damage due to cracking (e.g. cracking in partitions and facades) can occur very early while more severe damage that requires more substantial repair actions of nonstructural elements will tend to occur at much larger values of EDP. The initial resulting fragility functions from the ATC-38 data were less realistic. Many of the functions computed using this data produced probability distributions that had very large lognormal standard deviations, ranging from 2.3 to 6.4. This produced functions that did not clearly define where damage initiated or a distinct range of EDPs where the damage state is exceeded. Even for the first damage states, where the sample size of data points that experienced or exceeded the initial damage state was large enough to be considered reliable, the functions were problematic because of the way the data points were distributed. The data points were distributed such that there was no clear transition of EDP values between buildings that experienced damage and the buildings that did not exceed this level of damage. An example of a fragility function computed from data that produced a large dispersion due to this type of limitation is illustrated in Figure 5.13 Figure 5.13 shows the fragility function of DS2 (Slight Damage) for accelerationsensitive nonstructural components. The data points that experienced or exceeded this damage state are plotted on the top axis of the graph and the data points that did not experience this damage state are plotted on the bottom axis. These data points do not show a clear transition in EDP values between these two groups of data because of the way they overlap. The range of values for data points that did not experience damage falls entirely within the range of values for data points that did experience or exceed this damage state. This makes it impossible to determine what range of EDPs where there is little to no probability that damage will be observed, what range of EDPs where there is a very high probability that damage will be observed and the range of EDPs that transitions between these two extremes. The nature of this type of data distribution can most likely be attributed to the subjective interpretations of the damage states definitions by the engineers that collected the damage data. This results in damage being reported in an inconsistent manner.
CHAPTER 5
115
Although the ATC-38 dataset did not yield useful results as a whole, subsets of this data offer improved results.
P(DS2 | EDP)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0 500 1000 1500

2
2000
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.13 Example of ATC-38 data showing limitations of data
The ATC-38 data is comprised of different types of structures as described in section 5.3.2. The data was categorized by structural type (see Table 5.5) and these subsets were used to create fragility functions to see if there were better relationships between structural response and nonstructural damage. Fragilities for drift-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components were developed using data from concrete (C-1) and steel moment frame buildings (S-1). Figure 5.14 shows the fragility functions for these types of structures for both types of components as follows: (a) drift-sensitive components for concrete moment frames, (b) drift-sensitive components for steel moment frames, (c) acceleration-sensitive components for concrete moment frames, (d) acceleration-sensitive components for steel moment frames. The corresponding statistical parameters for these functions are reported in Table 5.9.
CHAPTER 5
116
P(DS | IDR)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 0.005 0.01
(a) C-1
P(DS | IDR)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40
(b) S-1
DS2: Slight
0.20 0.00 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01
DS3: Light DS4: Moderate
0.015
0.02
IDR
IDR
P(DS | PBA)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 500 1000
(c) C-1
P(DS | PBA)
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
(d) S-1
1500
2
2000
500
1000
1500
2
2000
PBA [cm/s ]
PBA [cm/s ]
Figure 5.14 Fragility functions using subsets of ATC-38 Data based on type of structural system (a) C-1: concrete moment frames drift-sensitive (b) S-1: steel moment frames drift-sensitive (c) C1: concrete moment frames acceleration-sensitive (d) S-1: steel moment frames accelerationsensitive
Table 5.9 Fragility function statistical parameters for subsets of ATC-38 data
Nonstructural | IDR C-1: Conc. Moment Frame S-1: Steel Moment Frame
Median LN Standard Deviation Median LN Standard Deviation
Damage State DS2 DS3 DS4
0.002 0.004
0.25 0.60
0.0026 0.0050 0.0080
0.38 0.40 0.40
Damage State DS2 DS3
Nonstructural | PBA [cm/s2] C-1: Conc. Moment Frame S-1: Steel Moment Frame
Median LN Standard Deviation Median LN Standard Deviation
200 569
0.40 0.81
200 1000
0.70 0.73
CHAPTER 5
117
5.7.1
Comparison with generic functions from HAZUS Generic fragility functions for nonstructural components have been used in
HAZUS, a US regional loss estimation methodology and computer program, to estimate losses due to earthquake ground motions (NIBS, 1999). The data used to create these functions has not been well documented. Where data is lacking, these functions are sometimes generated by engineering judgment. The generic functions for nonstructural components generated from the data documented in this study, can be used as a point of comparison to either validate or update functions from previously implemented by HAZUS. Figure 5.15 plots comparisons of generic HAZUS functions for drift and accelerationsensitive components with the first damage state of the functions calculated in this investigation. Only the first damage states are plotted because these functions have the most data to support their validity and therefore the most reliable. Figure 5.15(a) compares HAZUS functions for drift-sensitive components to the functions calculated using the CSMIP data. The CSMIP function indicates that damage initiates at smaller values of IDR than the HAZUS functions predict. The median for the first damage state of the HAZUS function (IDR = 0.004) is 28% larger than the one from the CSMIP function. These results suggest that the HAZUS function for drift-sensitive nonstructural components may lead to underestimations for drift-induced damage in commercial buildings (which were primarily used to generate the CSMIP buildings). When comparing the acceleration-sensitive functions in Figure 5.15(b), it can be observed that there is a substantial difference between the HAZUS functions and the one produced by empirical data. The median for the function developed from the CSMIP data is 58% greater than the median of the first damage state of the HAZUS fragilities. These results suggest that HAZUS functions may significantly overestimate earthquake-induced damage and corresponding economic losses in acceleration-sensitive components.
CHAPTER 5
118
P(DS | IDR) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.000
(a)
P(DS|PBA) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4
(b)
HAZUS DS1: Slight
HAZUS DS1: Slight CSMIP DS2: Slight
0.2 0.0
CSMIP DS2:Slight
0.005
0.010 IDR
0.015
0.020
0.0
0.5
1.0 PBA [g]
1.5
2.0
Figure 5.15 Comparison to HAZUS generic fragility functions
5.8 CONCLUSIONS
The preceding study consolidated data from instrumented CSMIP buildings and buildings documented in the ATC-38 report to create data points that related structural response parameters to damage states, or motion-damage pairs. Each building in the study had detailed information and consistent measurements of the amount of damage these building experienced. Approximate structural analyses using multi-degree of freedom models were used to simulate structural response and estimate the EDPs associated with the observed damage. Although these models are approximate, they yield more accurate estimates of response parameters, as compared to those previously computed using spectral single-degree of freedom systems. Summary sheets detailing each buildings structural characteristics, response parameter results and a summary of damage experienced were created to form a motiondamage database. The sheets report two primary engineering demand parameters: peak building acceleration and peak interstory drift ratio. The building summaries also report each structures general damage, structural damage, nonstructural damage, equipment damage and contents damage. The ATC-38 buildings also include more detailed nonstructural damage information on structures partitions, lighting and ceiling. Once these motion-damage pairs were generated, they were used to create fragility functions that estimate the probability of experiencing or exceeding discrete levels of damage conditioned on EDP.
The relationships derived from the CSMIP were used to compute the EDP-DV functions described in Chapter 3 of this dissertation. They were used as generic fragilities that account for losses from components that previously did not have specific functions. The EDP-DV functions were then included into the Story-based loss estimation toolbox described in Chapter 6. Information that these generic fragility functions provide, give a more complete picture of losses due to non-collapse and improves the accuracy of overall loss predictions. Furthermore, they can be used to validate and update other generic functions currently being used as demonstrated by the comparison with the fragilities from HAZUS. Elevating the ability to accurately predict the amount of loss a building can expect to experience during an earthquake will help stakeholders realize the value of investing in more innovative performance-based structural systems.
CHAPTER 5
120

BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION METHODS (chp1-5) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION METHODS (chp1-5) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University

Report No. 171 May 2009

200 The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center

Copyright by Carlos M. Ramirez 2009 All Rights Reserved

PREVIOUS WORK ON LOSS ESTIMATION ........................................................ 8

FIGURE 3.6 INFLUENCE OF VARYING ASSUMED GRAVITY LOAD ON SLAB-COLUMN SUBASSEMBLIES ON

FIGURE 4.6 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS FOR

TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ANALYTICAL PREDICTION

OF IDRY (A) A36 (B) A572 GRADE 50.................................................................................................73

PERIMETER FRAMES AS A FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED GROUND MOTION INTENSITY (C) NORMALIZED

FIGURE 8.20 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION OF LOSS CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE AT THE DBE

FIGURE 8.21 STANDARD DEVIATION OF LOSS CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE AS A FUNCTION OF GROUND

FIGURE 9.6 EFFECT OF CONSIDERING LOSS DUE TO DEMOLITION CONDITIONED ON NON-COLLAPSE ON

1.1 MOTIVATION & BACKGROUND

Although the levels of ground motion intensity these seismic events

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION

Other parameters that significantly influence the functions were also

2 PREVIOUS WORK ON LOSS ESTIMATION

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 REGIONAL LOSS ESTIMATION

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

2.3 BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

Previous Work in Loss Estimation

3 STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFIC LOSS ESTIMATION

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Figure 3.1 PEER methodology

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

3.2 STORY-BASED BUILDING-SPECIFC LOSS ESTIMATION

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

E[ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ] cl E [ LSTORY | NC , EDPk ]

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

3.3 DATA FOR EDP-DV FUNCTIONS

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

buildings used in this study can be found in Appendix A.

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Rugged IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR Rugged Rugged

Structural Structural Partitions Windows Partitions

8.2% 7.2% 3.1% 9.1% 6.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

IDR IDR IDR IDR IDR Rugged Rugged PFA

Partitions Partitions Generic-Drift Generic-Drift DS3 Partition-like

4.5% 1.9% 0.6% 1.9% 4.4% 2.2% 0.7% 5.1%

IDR PFA IDR Rugged PFA IDR

Generic-Drift Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like

PFA IDR PFA Rugged PFA IDR Rugged PFA IDR

Generic-Accl Generic-Drift Generic-Accl Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like Generic-Accl DS3 Partition-like =

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Beam-column Subassembly Slab-column Subassembly

Aslani & Miranda (2005)

Pagni & Lowes (2006)

Aslani & Miranda (2005), & Roberson et al. (2002)

Simplified Building Specific Loss Estimation

Repair Cost Expected Value 0.10

DS1 gypsum board that can be repaired with